How the italians mourn their war dead: ROME, Nov. 17 â The sight was extraordinary, but less so than the sound, or rather the lack of it. Although thousands upon thousands of people filled one of this city's most chaotic squares during the evening rush hour on Monday, the decibel level seldom rose above a whisper's. Silence was just one way in which those people sought to show their respect for 19 Italians killed in a suicide bombing in Iraq last week. Another was to wait two to three hours, in the drizzle and dark, for a chance to walk past the victims' coffins, arrayed inside a palace that towers over the square, Piazza Venezia. The line went on and on, just like Italy's mourning. This country's reaction to the casualties it suffered in the attack has been more than a modest, fleeting sob. For days on end, Italy's leaders have delivered public statements as sweeping as soliloquies. Newspapers have been jammed with essays about slain heroes, and television reports have been filled with crying. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/18/international/europe/18ITAL.html
What the... And we call ourselves patriots and true Americans? Sharp contrast between the two articles. Italians lost 19 and openly display their sorrow, national mouring, and public recognition. We have lost 450 and counting and our response is "bring them on"? and on top of it try to underplay our soldiers sacrifices, minimize public recognition and media coverage? You know people, it's irrelevant if we are reps, dems, moderate, or independent. This type of behavior is uncalled for, both as a free nation in general and from our "leaders" in particular. Our actions and responses speak volumes of who we are. Sad state of affairs. It is time to wake up.
Maybe the following theory helps explain the discrepancy: In Italy the premise is that the leaders of the country have to represent what the PEOPLE want. They include their people in the pain of loss of Italian life, because the Italians who died and those who might die in the future, die for those who stay behind, because they all (or rather a majority) believe that their chances of survival and wealth are increased by such actions. The Italian public is supposed to decide whether Italians should fight in Iraq, therefore they have the right and the obligation to share in the consequences of their decisions. In America the fuhrer uses the old trick of finding a common enemy to rally support behind himself and try to win re-election. It is not the American people who have made the decision to start a war, it is a publicity gag devised by the president's advisors or maybe even himself, just like in that movie, I don't remember what it was called, where they faked a war. It is of course easier to genuinely slaughter a few hundred thousand Iraqis and a few thousand Americans than to fake the whole thing in studios, but the basic thought is the same: Artificially create some motivation for the people to see that we "have to" start a war (like "we need more living space in the east" or "WMDs could one day threaten us [if we don't conquer the world to make sure our own corrupt officials are the only ones who have access to WMDs]"), then they will stand united behind the chief, i.e. re-elect him or (if he were a little smarter, like that German) build things to improve the economy and intrinsic value of the country. Bottom line, Nobody in America gives a damn about WMDs or freedom and democracy in Iraq, Rwanda, China, etc., but they want to feel STRONG and PROUD, then they will stand behind their dictator. Therefore, we need a war where we don't see any American casualties or even mishaps. After the election, it will all be over anyhow, one way or another. I wonder how they will explain that by the end of 2004 suddenly WMDs and war on terrorism and freedom and democracy for the middle east are no longer important. But what we know for sure is that all those ideals WILL become unimportant next year. Then we will probably have ceremonies and build memorials and stuff, and we will have American style mourning.
Lobster you are a disgrace. Calling Bush a dictator is over the line. My mother would be happy to tell you what living under a dictator is like. His name was Adolph Hitler. You need to grow up and learn your history. I swear, some Americans don't realize how good they have it until it's gone.
let's play "spot the attempted logical fallacy": personal attack ad hominem appeal to emotion red herring appeal to spite/ad hominem attempted, as there is no conclusion given. if the implication is that he is not a dictator, maybe some argument differentiating him from a dictator would work.
A Dictator is an absolutist or autocratic ruler who assumes extraconstitutional powers Modern dictators have usually come to power in times of emergency. Frequently they have seized power by coup, but some, most notably Benito Mussolini in Italy and Adolf Hitler in Germany, achieved office by legal means and once in power overthrew constitutional restraints. In the USSR the âdictatorship of the proletariatâ took the form of a concentration of power in the hands of the Communist party. Under Joseph Stalin it developed into a personal dictatorship, but after his death there emerged a system of collective leadership. Now you tell me how Bush fits this description.
Dunno if yer plain stupid, or yer witting just for the shake of arguing with other posters bumya FITS EXACTLY YOUR DESCRIPTION. achieved office by legal means (Supreme Court ruling) IS overthrowing constitutional restraints (Patriot Act I, and II, Homeland, Secrecy, Sealing Public documents/presidential papers to mention few) I asked you before and will ask again, STOP SMOKING Take yer pill
Hey Nollan, give me a call when you pass your citzenship exam. In case you don't know, our government is not an autocratic government and our President does not have unlimited power. And congress has to give the consent to go to war with another country. And I hate to break this to you but the Patriot act does not violate our constitution. Wait a minute, I thought it was liberals who are trying to re-write and change our constitution? And you keep asking me what I'm smoking, but isn't it liberals who are fighting to legalize drugs?
as for how or how not, Lobster wrote the original post, so I'll leave it to him. My point was that calling him a disgrace and lecturing him to read history does not refute his allegation.