So much for the "freedom of speech"

[honeybee]

Here are two links which explain really what the US government sees as the freedom of speech:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...home-headlines

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...home-headlines

.

[Something Else]

I haven't read the entirety of the second link, so I'll defer any comment on it till later.

In the first link, where was it reported that the church was being forced to, oh wait a minute.

Where is it written that a church has a right to freedom of speech?

ANd Now,

Where was it reported that the church was being forced to give up its right to free speech?


-Lou

[demotivater]

That church can say anything they want, but there are strict guidelines set up for a tax exempt organization. In that case, they have to keep out of politics, and they're not.

As for the military writing articles in Iraqi papers - they've already said the articles are all factual, no one is disputing that. So, instead of the typical left wing media tripe, they are allowing people to read the other side of the story, you know, the factual side. That kind of stuff has been going on for years and years, especially in time of war. I would be upset if it wasn't going on, in that case, someone wouldn't be doing there job.

[moeur]

By removing the tax-exempt status of a non-profit organization that engages in political activities we are simply saying that we don't want to force any taxpayer to have to subsidize an organization that actively works against the taxpayer's own political views.

With regard to the US military paying to have cetrain stories published in an Iraqi newspaper:
This is an attempt to provide balance to the onesided stories and outright lies published by Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya. The stories publish on behalf of the US were truthful stories that the aforementioned media outlets failed to mention.

[Xanith]

Why does it not surprise me that Honeybee failed to look into the facts before posting.

X

[yrwyddfa]

I can always ignore the facts and post utter tripe, if you like?

[timeshifter]

I don't even need to read the articles to tell you what "freedom of speech" really is... It's anything you want that doesn't give anyone the impression that you're Anti-American, and apparently being anti-war is now anti-American, so those of us who don't think we should have ever gone into Iraq should all be thrown in prison, right? bull.

[moeur]

I don't even need to read the articles to tell you what "freedom of speech" really is... It's anything you want that doesn't give anyone the impression that you're Anti-American, and apparently being anti-war is now anti-American, so those of us who don't think we should have ever gone into Iraq should all be thrown in prison, right? bull.

Is someone trying to send you to prison?

Is someone trying to send John Kerry or Howard Dean to prison?

Are they anti-American? I think so. Their rhetoric comes not from a belief that the war is the wrong thing to do but from purely a political agenda. They want the US to lose the war because then it would reflect badly on the current president which happens to belong to a different political party than they do.

If the current president were in their party they would be behind the war. All you have to do to convince yourself that that is true is read their remarks from 1998 when Clinton was president and threatening to take action against Iraq.

So, being against the war because you think that it is harming the U.S. in not anti-American, but actually pro-American. Being against the war simply to gain political ground is truly anti-American.

[szlamany]

honeybee is completely clueless - exposed many times to be...

Why do you all get pulled into these debates with someone who has absolutely no idea...

The biggest compliment to the US-way-of-life is the ever growing immigration rates!

[mendhak]

Honeybee is also a hypocrite. "Freedom of speech" is certainly more lacking in India than in George Bush's USA.

[yrwyddfa]

I'm wondering whether or not I should get involved in this one . . .

[mendhak]

Jump in, but don't expect any replies soon.

[k1ll3rdr4g0n]

For the first one:
They can't, in the constituation its called 'seperation of church and state'. If the government wants to intervine with a harmless religon, its a federal offence. If I were that chruch, I would ignore that letter. If they say anything else about it, I would bring it the to the supreme court. First Amendment people . And it says in the article that they can not intervine with political stuff. He didn't, he was merly discussing them (and comparing them to what Jesus would say, not like he said he wants everyone there to vote for X.). IRS is just shooting bs to try and get that religon shutdown.

For the second one:
It's in a different country, so our laws wont apply there. At least now we know where our tax money is going towards...

[moeur]

They can't, in the constituation its called 'seperation of church and state'. If the government wants to intervine with a harmless religon, its a federal offence. If I were that chruch, I would ignore that letter.

The constitution says nothing about "separation of church and state".

The government does not have to grant tax-exempt status to any organization, but chooses to grant such status to certain "qualified" nonprofit organizations. The definition of qualified is left to the IRS and includes the provision that the organization will not engage in political activities. Once they do engage in such activities they lose their qualification. Perfectly constitutional, it's been tested in the courts.

[demotivater]

For the first one:
They can't, in the constituation its called 'seperation of church and state'.

I love it when I see that. Was it this thread or another that mentioned brainwashing?

[timeshifter]

No kidding. The Constitution never once mentions church and state. That's a government concept that was invented to try and keep things fair... worked out.. well, pretty crapily, to be honest.

[yrwyddfa]

The seperation of the church from the state is found first in England's Magna Carta (I think!) But this was not an honorable, nor regal clause. King John just didn't like the pope . . .

The idea that the US Constitution has the same ideas in it comes from a reply to the Danbury baptists letter from Jefferson which says:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" thus building a wall of eternal separation between Church & State. Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpost.html

Although the phrase (in bold was dropped - or lost) this letter led directly (this letter is a draft I believe) to the US's Establishment clause (ammend I, ratified 15/12/1791):

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Whilst fairly generic (it was designed to deal witht the press, and extend freedom of speech, too) it is easily seen that the results of such legislature is to separate the church from the state, and that, I think, was the intention when the clause was written.

The essence of this clause is that Congree must never intervene proactively, nor against the making of laws if they relate to a religious practice, and it protects any American who wishes to practice any religion thereof.

So technically the phrase in question does not appear in the US Constitution, but the consitition certainly does contain clauses which reflect the spirit of 'the church should be seperate from the state'

[moeur]

The essence of this clause is that Congree must never intervene proactively, nor against the making of laws if they relate to a religious practice, and it protects any American who wishes to practice any religion thereof.

It is the government that decides what is a religion and what is not. For instance, I cannot say that I belong to my own religion and that my religion requires me to use any drug I wish.

Separation of church and state is taken by some to mean that our government is not itself governed by a religion. However lately it is being perverted into the thought that the government shall not allow any expression of religion in any public place.

This certainly is not what the US founding fathers meant.

[yrwyddfa]

It is the government that decides what is a religion and what is not. For instance, I cannot say that I belong to my own religion and that my religion requires me to use any drug I wish.

That may certainly be the case but I'm sure that you have predefined rules as to what constitutes a valid religion or otherwise, and Congress just joins the dots . . .

[nemaroller]

Is someone trying to send you to prison?

Is someone trying to send John Kerry or Howard Dean to prison?

Are they anti-American? I think so. Their rhetoric comes not from a belief that the war is the wrong thing to do but from purely a political agenda. They want the US to lose the war because then it would reflect badly on the current president which happens to belong to a different political party than they do.

If the current president were in their party they would be behind the war. All you have to do to convince yourself that that is true is read their remarks from 1998 when Clinton was president and threatening to take action against Iraq.

So, being against the war because you think that it is harming the U.S. in not anti-American, but actually pro-American. Being against the war simply to gain political ground is truly anti-American.

That's truly ridiculous.

First off, the war was won years ago when Saddam fell from power - it lasted about 2 or 3 days if I recall.

What's going on now is ditwit Bush keeping the war going so he stays in power - its how he won the last election since 10% of voters will vote for the interim president if there are soldiers overseas regardless of their opinion of the president - so there is your anti-american sentiment from dubbya doodo head.

I'm sorry, but we could use the $400 billion we have WASTED on this war. We should have stopped a month in and saved ourselves $300 billion.

Anyone that supports an administration that outspent all other administrations in history is either a shoddy faux republican or a dimwit themselves.

[k1ll3rdr4g0n]

I love it when I see that. Was it this thread or another that mentioned brainwashing?

Brainwashing, Yes. Its called US Government, a required class in HS (at least in my school...). Passed with a B I think.

[moeur]

I'm sorry, but we could use the $400 billion we have WASTED on this war. We should have stopped a month in and saved ourselves $300 billion.

Yes, what do we care if Iraq succumbs to civil war and hundreds of thousands die.

[yrwyddfa]

Yes, what do we care if Iraq succumbs to civil war and hundreds of thousands die.

I wonder what the statistics are of civilian 'casualties' due to two Iraq wars vs the civilian deaths attributed to Saddam . . .

[moeur]

I wonder what the statistics are of civilian 'casualties' due to two Iraq wars vs the civilian deaths attributed to Saddam . . .

That is a question.

Right now the best estimate for Iraqi dead for this war, stands at about 30,000. That includes both innocent civilians and combatants. There doesn’t seem to be any divisions of the numbers such as how many innocents, how many killed by insurgents/terrorists etc.

The IRAQ BODY COUNT Database

[demotivater]

That's truly ridiculous.

First off, the war was won years ago when Saddam fell from power - it lasted about 2 or 3 days if I recall.

What's going on now is ditwit Bush keeping the war going so he stays in power - its how he won the last election since 10% of voters will vote for the interim president if there are soldiers overseas regardless of their opinion of the president - so there is your anti-american sentiment from dubbya doodo head.

I'm sorry, but we could use the $400 billion we have WASTED on this war. We should have stopped a month in and saved ourselves $300 billion.

Anyone that supports an administration that outspent all other administrations in history is either a shoddy faux republican or a dimwit themselves.

So, if the war was ended Bush would somehow lose the White House? Have you guys stopped to consider where we'd be if Kerry had won the election. Honestly, what do you think he'd be doing right now? Would you feel safe, just as safe, less safe? Would the US stop being a target of Islamic terror? I really want to know your opinions on that instead of simple bashing.

[FunkyDexter]

What's going on now is ditwit Bush keeping the war going so he stays in power - its how he won the last election since 10% of voters will vote for the interim president if there are soldiers overseas regardless of their opinion of the president - so there is your anti-american sentiment from dubbya doodo head.

Sorry, Namaroller, but this seems utterly Bats**t to me. I'm certainly no Bushophile (I think he's quite possibly the most dangerous and destructive man on the planet!) but to say he's deliberately keeping the war going is nuts. It would have served his purposes far better to have a nice, clean military victory followed by the Iraqi people turning out in droves to shout "Thanks GW", leaving him to stand as the glorious bringer of democracy to the middle east. The continueing war and mounting casulaties has erroded his support to an all time low. The war continues in spite of Georges desires, not because of them

[nemaroller]

Bush kept the war going to win the re-election,plain and simple.

Iraq was never a threat to us, I'm not going to regurgitate the news from the past three years to make that point.

Demotivater:

The US has been a target regardless of actions we take. We are the pinacle of western civilization that extremist Islam will have no part of.

But, going over there and stirring up the bees nest certainly will have it consequences, just like the support of the Afghan rebels against the Soviets laid us down the path to the attack on the twin towers. I'm not saying the path is right or wrong, just that any action we take on foreign soil has consequences. For people to just sit dumbly and believe shooting missiles at an abstract enemy such as terrorism will have any posititve benefit in the long run is total idiocy on parade.

So the war is still waging, and will keep waging until we pull out of Iraq - it will wage far past that, but at least it won't cost us more money or lives.

This whole lead wheel of patriotism to shun war naysayers is just a grand political ploy to beef up spending on our military industry and shock the arabs that when it comes to oil there'll be no foot loosing about.

If we had simply attacked Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and never invaded Iraq - do you think we would be less secure? I don't. Any one person can do major damage - there is no safety net from terrorism.

But pull apart from the terrorism debate, and sit back and realize what a lously leader Bush is. I guarantee the next president, whether republican or democrat, will immediately start to withdraw the troops (unless its Jed Bush).

Answer me why we are still there? To free the Iraqi's from Sadaam? We killed his family, now lets just kill him and leave. But Bush is just plain arrogant. Never mind that he snorted cocaine, had an alcohol problem, stutters like a playing card on a two-year old's big wheel, and believes God has sent him on this mission. Holy crap people - anytime someone says God has sent him on a mission, let's just impeach them immediately.

[nemaroller]

Yes, what do we care if Iraq succumbs to civil war and hundreds of thousands die.

Exactly. What do we care? Its happening in Africa. It happened in Slovenia, (but we finally got involved to make sure Europe didn't enter an encore of WWII).

Seriously... stop sacraficing my money, my infrastructure, my nation's future over a centuries long rift between Shi-ites and Sundis.

Stop worrying about oil, and push the alternatives. Damn, there's a guy in california, another in Germany running cars on fuel made from vegetable oil. What's all this Bush concern over crude oil - he certainly doesn't care about conserving that oil. I really just don't get where that Texan nutjob is headed.

[dglienna]

Willy Nelson's tour bus runs on vegatable oil, and has been for a few years.

[moeur]

Willy Nelson's tour bus runs on vegatable oil, and has been for a few years.

where does he get a fillup? KFC?

[moeur]

If we had simply attacked Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and never invaded Iraq - do you think we would be less secure? I don't. Any one person can do major damage - there is no safety net from terrorism.

But pull apart from the terrorism debate, and sit back and realize what a lously leader Bush is. I guarantee the next president, whether republican or democrat, will immediately start to withdraw the troops (unless its Jed Bush).

Yes, I too long for the days of a president that just ignores problems and hopes they'll go away instead of taking action; one that bases his actions on daily public opinion and his popularity rating rather than what he thinks is right. Of course we can't really call that leadership, but who cares as long as the poll numbers are high.

The truth is, we went into Iraq to change the Middle East; to bring democracy to the region. A democratic region breeds far fewer terrorists. Look at the reason these people become terrorists. They are oppressed by their leaders and they hate the U.S. because we support those oppressive leaders. A hands-off approach by the rest of the world, however, would plunge the whole region into chaos and cost perhaps millions of deaths throughout the region.

Our goal in the past has been to, above all, promote stability because of our dependency on oil. This is still a goal, but now we see that it cannot be achieved by simply supporting the corrupt regimes that rule over there. So, now we have to undo what we have done by facilitating the replacement of those regimes with democracy; the only system that has a chance of long term stability. That is what Bush is doing and why your tax dollars are being spent.

[demotivater]

Shooting missiles at abstracts got us into this mess in the first place. An administration with some actual balls is finally taking action other than spouting rhetoric and dropping a bomb on an aspirin factory.

The next President (republican or democrat) had better think twice before pulling out. Our experience in Somalia proved that. Literally days after that debacle, Clinton pulled us out, effectively giving these yahoos a new pair to stand up to us.

The people calling for us to pull out are well aware we're a giant target, as you said yourself, but are more than willing to let our enemies have the room to do nothing but train and prepare to attack us. Smart money says they haven't been doing much of that the past few years. I see this thing going on for a long time to come and continuing well beyond the borders of Iraq. Idiocy on parade is being such a sissy that you'd sit on your rear end and wait for someone to be strong enough to kill you, your family, and your way of life. Talk about messing with your nations future.

Look at Iran - they are fast approaching nuclear capabilities and openly proclaim Israel should be nuked along with the rest of the west. Yea, no need to go meddling in foreign affairs.

[zaza]

Guh, people do believe what they want to believe. (Said to noone in particular).
I certainly don't think that we went into Iraq for the good of Iraqis. Since when did we ever put ourselves in a position of our own disadvantage for the benefit of others. It even took Pearl Harbour to convince the US to join WWII! Now admittedly, that was a long time ago, and people have realised a few things since then, but generally speaking we don't go around promoting democracy because we believe it is best for everyone, nor even because we ultimately believe it will be better for ourselves.
Nor do I think it was about oil - Bush knows that any such benefits won't start rolling in until long after he's gone and I don't think he's got in mind the long-term future of American SUV drivers.
We can only guess at the motivation. For example, suppose we'd got reliable (!) intelligence that Iran had nearly finished a nuclear warhead and was planning to invade Iraq to create a giant Islamic superstate. We could a) leave them to it and hope for the best (supporting whom...?), b) go after Iran with no reasonable excuse and stir up lots of trouble or c) preempt them and go after Saddam ourselves, with any one of a number of passable excuses and whom everybody hates anyway, including his Arab neighbours. Without the benefit of hindsight, maybe such a thing might have seemed like a reasonable option. But it's all just hypothetical, of course. My point is simply that there are a limited number of people who know why we invaded Iraq, they've been asked and they've responded. Whether or not we believe it is up to us.

Do I believe it was the right thing to do? Yes, actually, I do. Maybe not at that time, and certainly not under such a flimsy pretext, but it needed to be done nonetheless. We either need to start taking some action as regards the various situations of human misery about the globe, or leave other people to it and look after number one. The latter will only foment poverty, jealousy and oppression and I do think we're better off pitching in to help one another. But each intervention in an appropriate manner. I happen to think that military engagement is all that would work with Saddam. That is not necessarily the case for Zimbabwe, or North Korea, or China, or Israel and Palestine, or the Congo etc etc. It does not follow that we now need to send tanks to visit old Bob Mugabe.
As for whether we are now more or less secure, I don't think that is a question you can reasonably answer. Do you believe that all the chaps creating trouble in Iraq are spurred on by the occupation? That having British and US troops about the place drives a man to hack another's head off on camera? No, these troublemakers would now be making trouble somewhere; it's just that rather than being dispersed across Europe, the Middle East and America as they were before, they've now gone to Iraq. Maybe we've staved off a wave of 9/11's by concentrating all the grief over there? Again, just a speculation but the point is that it simply isn't reasonable to say "We would be safer had Iraq not happened". There is no basis for that assertion whatsoever.

Ultimately, whether you agree or disagree with it, we're there now and we need to decide what to do. The idea of cutting and running, leaving the country to "sort itself out" when there is so large a concentration of people prepared to commit unspeakable violence to achieve their aims is a) inhuman and b) storing up trouble for the future. We've tried too often to fudge issues and hope for the best (cf Israel 1945, for example) and we only make more trouble for ourselves. Let's pull together and sort out the mess we've made, clear out the troublemakers and restore some form of peaceful governance and then leave. After all, if militant attacks ceased permanently from tomorrow, I suspect all troops would be out within 3 months and the money would be pouring into business, infrastructure etc. No, the excuse "we just want you to leave" on the part of insurgents doesn't wash.
Despite all that's going on over there, I am optimistic that Iraq will one day be able to look after itself without interference from either us or from these militants. But I suspect that it will take more of the former to remove the threat of the latter.


[end of rant]

[FunkyDexter]

I was totally against the invasion but I've generally been in the 'Our mess, our responsibility to sort it out' camp until now. I think I might be starting to change my mind though. How do you answer the 'it's our presence that's fueling the ongoing insurgency' argument? That argument seems increasingly hard for me to answer and is the single thing that's starting to change my mind.

Some fuel for optimism, a recent BBC poll in Iraq asked whether they'd prefer Iraq to be 3 seperate states, a single nation ruled by a federal system or a single nation ruled by a central government. Over 70% of Iraqis went with the third option - central government. So that would seem to indicate that the prospect of civil war is exagerated.

[nemaroller]

Shooting missiles at abstracts got us into this mess in the first place. An administration with some actual balls is finally taking action other than spouting rhetoric and dropping a bomb on an aspirin factory.

This administration IS shooting missiles at abstracts. Its all smoke and mirrors.

Remember, it was not Iraq that was breeding terrorists. So how does bringing democracy to Iraq stop terrorism? It doesn't.

And as far as Afghanistan... I think this essay holds quite a few truths..(just skip over the first four paragraphs on the 'American ruling elite' )

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/no...afgh-n20.shtml

[demotivater]

Yeeks. That's quite a source.

[zaza]

How do you answer the 'it's our presence that's fueling the ongoing insurgency' argument?

Because the ongoing insurgency delights in killing as many Iraqi police as possible. Because the ongoing insurgency really couldn't give a monkeys how many civilians are killed as collateral. Because the ongoing insurgency kidnaps westerners and demands...that we let people out of jail.

And the best way to deal with this situation is what, to leave the people of the country to deal with it? Maybe the militants will all go away if we leave? Or maybe they'll just destroy what's left of the police force, storm the government offices and install some hardline fundamentalist as ruler. And once troops are out, it's going to be nigh on impossible to get them back in so when we leave, it's going to have to be for good. No, I don't think for a minute that if troops were to leave tomorrow, the insurgency would disappear immediately. It would stick around long enough to ensure that the situation for Iraq became even less tolerable than it was under Saddam which was, let's face it, pretty bad, and then get back to its original task of causing grief for the West.
These are people who need to be dealt with, and it may as well be now and in Iraq as in 5 years and all across the western world to a much greater degree than it is now.

[nemaroller]

Yeeks. That's quite a source.

That article referenced Jane's for the prewar in Afghanistan. Jane’s Defence Weekly isn't some tabloid magazine or drive-by midnight website. It's been read by many in the defense industry for decades.

"Iraq provided the key recruitment tool - a legitimate defensive jihad against the US military - that Saudi terrorists previously lacked. Saudi volunteers have numbered in the low hundreds at least."

http://www.janes.com/security/intern...1123_1_n.shtml

[FunkyDexter]

And the best way to deal with this situation is what, to leave the people of the country to deal with it?

Well, that's the thing, maybe so. All your arguments boil down to 'look at the things the insurgents are doing' but most of them are also directly connected to the coalition presence: Iraqi police getting killed... because they're seen as collaborators with an occupying force. Westeners getting kidnapped... because they're there. Civilians getting kiiled... because the insurgents are using them as a tool in their fight against the coalition. This is what really troubles me, whenever I make this argument myself I find that all the reasons I give for staying can be turned back with a simple 'It's happening because we're there' and I'm left wondering, are we only really staying because we can't stand to lose? And if so, are Iraqi's and coalition forces actually being killed for our pride.

I think Nemaroller makes a gooid point, there was no significant terrorist threat from Iraq before we invaded. The threat was from Saudi Arabia. And doesn't our presence merely serve to legitamize the insurgency?

[yrwyddfa]

It's been read by many in the defense industry for decades.

My goodness me! Is that in some poll of what the defense industry reads, then?