Iraq, again

[Guest]

THIS HAS NOT BEEN POSTED BY ME !!

Therefore i

In medicine we make decisions daily - who lives and who dies, based on a group of studies, available resources, estimates and probablilties. These decisions suck. Telling someone “i’m sorry, you’re going to die” is the suckiest part of my job. If i don’t, someone else will do it. Does this equate me with someone who would kill for the sake of killing someone? Of course not - you would never consider it. At the same time, you are doing the same with business people. This is unfair.

No, there is a difference. The person is going to die regardless of what you do, regardless of who tells it. You mix up things here. There are things “noone” can change and things “you” can’t change. But if you don’t try on those “you” things, and noone else does try… then they look like “noone” things, even though they are not, even though “together” you might succeed.

Well, that’s not true. For that matter, everyone is going to die, it’s just a question of when. Physicians decide daily when to discontinue a procedure that may well give a person months of life (admittedly not a great life) in the names of “dignity” and “cost-savings”.

But what we started from is that CEOs and SH have things in common: they are selfish, have to be selfish to be successful, and both have to disregard others…

again not necessarily true. Great CEO’s may be unselfish and successful. Of course we may have to address the question of what “selfishness” is. Is it selfish to want to keep one’s job? Is it selfish to do what your board of directors demands (i.e. increase profits, maintain long-term feasibility etc.)? Many corporations are a few hundred jobs away from unprofitibility - this, long-term, equals death of a corporation, and several thousands of jobs. SH is different. He crosses the line from selfish/successful to evil/hubristic/gonna-die-ism. For him to be successful would require him to be not only less selfish, but to appear to act more rationally. He once did great things for Iraq in spite of the war with Iran, however his attitude and actions are only serving to impoverish his country, and they are doing nothing for his own personal success (unless we measure success by a different bar, of course).

i wonder how far can a simple misunderstanding go :) …. if you read the first post to that, then (from my point) we can stop this part of the thread…

true - this is quite off kilter from the thread. I just spotted a humorous inaccuracy based on leftist ideology with only occassional anecdotal basis in reality and ran with it. Excuse me if this was in appropriate.

with the one thing: I do not accept “If i don’t do it, then someone else will do it” as a personal excuse for anybody for anything. This is submitting to the brainless mass around you, and “proven” to be wrong: Elections wouldn’t work at all if everybody thought like that, environmentalists would never have been so successful. Etc.

This is fair, however again only occassionally. True, we would like people to take the more creative none “employee-liquidation-y” routes, and it would be nice if hardline Americans took a less “let’s blow stuff up today” approach. At the same time, there is the occassion when the lesser of 2 evils is the only apparent “choice”. Let’s not confuse this with choosing evil for evil’s sake.
(and yes - i am using the word “evil” both because it is appropriate in my country, and because i’m all about aggrivating Fin before my next trip to Europe - kind of a 2 for 1 deal, and bonsoir Fin)

As well, i posted an answer to YBs post (asking what he thinks is “balance”, how the one candidate for chancellorship who thought of closing the airspace for US warplanes is “pro peace” and the other one who allows that is “anti-US”, asking what the notion about semites should mean)…. this has vanished.
Has it been deleted? And if yes, why?

[cystic crypt]

Never been much of a Catholic, however i am happy with how far the church as come:

War never inevitable, says Pope
Last Updated Sat, 08 Feb 2003 19:39:21
VATICAN CITY - With talk of a U.S.-led war against Iraq intensifying, Pope John Paul pleaded with the world Saturday to find peaceful solutions to disputes.

He said humanity must never give up on diplomacy and fall into the trap of preferring weapons to words.
“We have to multiply efforts. We can’t stop when faced with either terror attacks or the threats that are on the horizon,” the Pontiff said.

“We should never resign ourselves, almost as if war is inevitable.”

“Tensions and winds of war” are swirling around the planet, he said, and people are being tempted by “hate and violence.”

Addressing members of an Italian peace group that helped end a civil war in Mozambique 10 years ago, the Pope emphasized that hope and dialogue are always the answer.

Saturday’s remarks were made as the Vatican prepared to step up its own efforts to avoid a war in Iraq.

The pope is scheduled to meet Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz on Friday. There are also reports that UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan will fly to Rome in the next few weeks.

The Roman Catholic Church is opposed to the use of force against Iraq, and has said it would not consider any attack a “just war.”

On Friday, the Pope sat down with German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer before issuing a joint appeal for peace. Germany is one of the leading critics of the White House’s threats to launch a unilateral attack against Baghdad. It wants UN arms inspectors to have more time to assess the threat that Iraq poses to the world.

The head of the Vatican’s justice and peace division, Archbishop Renato Martino, has said the church is unswayed by Washington’s allegations that Iraq poses weapons of mass destruction. He called the claims too vague. Martino has also warned that bombs dropped on Baghdad would undoubtedly spark terrorist reprisals that would kill civilians.

• by the way, does it piss people off when i copy and paste stuff? If it does, then SCREW YOU :evil: :evil: :evil:
  :D

[DeviantScripter]

I respect the church for speaking out and saying that war is not always supported by the church. However, I don’t think it’s the church’s business to get involved in political affairs. They need to stick to what they do best, and that’s educating people about Catholic morality. Stay away from the Iraq situation, and just maintain their stance as being “pro-peace”, and that’d be the appropriate position for the church. (In my humble opinion, of course.)

[yourbuttocks]

Actually, the church also like feeds starving people and stuff.

[cystic crypt]

@Deviant:Scripter:

I respect the church for speaking out and saying that war is not always supported by the church. However, I don’t think it’s the church’s business to get involved in political affairs. They need to stick to what they do best, and that’s educating people about Catholic morality. Stay away from the Iraq situation, and just maintain their stance as being “pro-peace”, and that’d be the appropriate position for the church. (In my humble opinion, of course.)

right. Because we know taht this war, rather than being a moral war, is more of a politico-economic war . . . . :-?

[Guest]

with the one thing: I do not accept “If i don’t do it, then someone else will do it” as a personal excuse for anybody for anything. This is submitting to the brainless mass around you, and “proven” to be wrong: Elections wouldn’t work at all if everybody thought like that, environmentalists would never have been so successful. Etc.

This is fair, however again only occassionally. True, we would like people to take the more creative none “employee-liquidation-y” routes, and it would be nice if hardline Americans took a less “let’s blow stuff up today” approach. At the same time, there is the occassion when the lesser of 2 evils is the only apparent “choice”. Let’s not confuse this with choosing evil for evil’s sake.

Even if you have to decide for the “lesser evil” you are still responsible for your deeds…. am i more american than the US’s neighbor if i insist on each persons own responsibility for their deeds?
And saying “if i didn’t do it…” is nothing but putting that responsibility onto “the other’s” shoulders. It’s like saying “if i had had the choice, then i would have acted differently”. IMO, you always have the choice, but you conciously decide against it (for whatever reasons, maybe because you don’t want to lose your job, maybe you don’t want to be called traitor, whatever).
If you have to decide in a lose-lose situation, you can complain that the world is bad, because there is no good way out, but whatever you decide, you must stand for it. If you choose the lesser evil, you can always say “hey, at least i made the best out of it…”
everything else would be worse than communism :)

[yourbuttocks]

!!!UPDATE!!!UPDATE!!!UPDATE!!!

U.N. weapons inspectors have found a missile program in Iraq which violates the U.N. resolution.

!!!END!!!END!!!END!!!

[Guest]

@yourbuttocks:

U.N. weapons inspectors have found a missile program in Iraq which violates the U.N. resolution.

You are lying.

They found a (one) missile, which probably has a reach of more than 150 km.
I read about a week ago (!)of the two main rocket programs of the Iraq (Al Samoud II and Al Fatah).
In tests, Al Samoud II rocket(s) have flown up to (!, not all of them) 183 km, at least one flew Al Fatah 161 km. Both rocket types don’t have an active steering, and the above data have been mentioned in the weapons declaration (which i thought contained nothing new, if i believed the US and UK). Al Samoud II also has a calibre (possibly the wrong word) of 76 cm, that is more than the 60 cm that the UNSCOM-inspectors prompted/requested (right word?) in 1994 of the Iraq as a limit for their rockets.

Now YB, seriously:
If you develop something, can you expect that all you ever do will be less than you expect it to do?
If you build a car that is allowed to go 100 km/h max…. and someone takes it and tests it… and sometimes this car goes faster (for whatever reasons, wind, downhill, good roads), is that a breach?

It turns out to be a breach when you start to examine how you can employ these reasons why your rockets go further, your car faster.

If you find something illegal by chance, is that the crime?
I would say it is a crime when you start to look for where this illegal came from and how you can get more of that source.

[Guest]

Something to think over……
(before someone here mentions the tape as a “proof” for the connection between Bin Ladin and the “socialist”, “infidel”, “Iraqi hypocrit” Saddam)

have a look at: http://www.swinke.com/postgraduate/2003/articles/0003_agare.htm

and for those who can speak german :):
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,234863,00.html

For those who can’t is summarize that article:
Richard Goldstone, former UN chief prosecutor of the Den Haag Tribunal for war crimes said on the australian TV network ABC, that you US could not call an attack on the Iraq self-defence or, therefore any military action without backing of the UN would be illegal.

[DeviantScripter]

Something to think over……
(before someone here mentions the tape as a “proof” for the connection between Bin Ladin and the “socialist”, “infidel”, “Iraqi hypocrit” Saddam)

have a look at: http://www.swinke.com/postgraduate/2003/articles/0003_agare.htm

and for those who can speak german :
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,234863,00.html

For those who can’t is summarize that article:
Richard Goldstone, former UN chief prosecutor of the Den Haag Tribunal for war crimes said on the australian TV network ABC, that you US could not call an attack on the Iraq self-defence or, therefore any military action without backing of the UN would be illegal.

Wow, some left-wing nutcase thinks America is responsible for breeding terrorism. Big surpise. :roll:

You are lying.

They found a (one) missile, which probably has a reach of more than 150 km.
I read about a week ago (!)of the two main rocket programs of the Iraq (Al Samoud II and Al Fatah).
In tests, Al Samoud II rocket(s) have flown up to (!, not all of them) 183 km, at least one flew Al Fatah 161 km. Both rocket types don’t have an active steering, and the above data have been mentioned in the weapons declaration (which i thought contained nothing new, if i believed the US and UK). Al Samoud II also has a calibre (possibly the wrong word) of 76 cm, that is more than the 60 cm that the UNSCOM-inspectors prompted/requested (right word?) in 1994 of the Iraq as a limit for their rockets.

Why are you trying to explain and justify Saddam doing something wrong?

Now YB, seriously:
If you develop something, can you expect that all you ever do will be less than you expect it to do?
If you build a car that is allowed to go 100 km/h max…. and someone takes it and tests it… and sometimes this car goes faster (for whatever reasons, wind, downhill, good roads), is that a breach?

It turns out to be a breach when you start to examine how you can employ these reasons why your rockets go further, your car faster.

Oh pleeeeease…why are you being so naive? :roll:
Like Yanny has said repeatedly, Saddam is not stupid. He knows damn straight that putting a rocket with an X size engine in it will make it go X distance.

If you find something illegal by chance, is that the crime?
I would say it is a crime when you start to look for where this illegal came from and how you can get more of that source.

You’re D A M N straight it’s the crime. :evil:
So now we can’t arrest a guy who possess 100 lbs. of marijuana in his car? We have to catch him getting more of it…? That’s rediculous.

[yourbuttocks]

Falk how could you have read about something that happened yesterday a week ago?

[Guest]

@yourbuttocks:

Falk how could you have read about something that happened yesterday a week ago?

As you might have read, it was in the report. So, it seems that some news agency here brought that news before yesterday.
That’s why i am quite surprised about the waves that Blair makes about it.

@D:S:

For those who can’t is summarize that article:
Richard Goldstone …said … military action without backing of the UN would be illegal.

Wow, some left-wing nutcase thinks America is responsible for breeding terrorism. Big surpise.

So, first i read from your statement:
Everyone who is not agreeing is “some left-wing nutcase”. Good way to argue, you never can be wrong then, can you?
Did you notice which country i took those news from?
Australia: the country with a government more eager to lick your boots than any other in the world.

…the above data have been mentioned in the weapons declaration (which i thought contained nothing new, if i believed the US and UK).

Why are you trying to explain and justify Saddam doing something wrong?

No, i am not. I am am pointing out that the UK and US contradict themselves.
They said the weapons declaration was useless. And now they make up something that was declared there as a news like “Saddam has said nothing about those rockets, we found them…” (with these inefficient inspections? I thought they canÄt find anything, and that’s why we need the war?)
That’s actually two contradictions.
Wasn’t it you who said i should trust their (US/UK) secret agencies? For what reasons? The US has some hidden aims, working towards them, and i have no idea what they could be. All i can do is look what happens and how they behave. And from the moment, it all looks like “get more influence, a strategic base, and oil”. That is not worth being supported by any means.

Oh pleeeeease…why are you being so naive?
Like Yanny has said repeatedly, Saddam is not stupid. He knows damn straight that putting a rocket with an X size engine in it will make it go X distance.

Oh pleeeeease…why are you being so ignorant of how R&D works?
You know damn staight that putting a rocket with and X+delta size engine in it will make it go X+Delta distance.

How many rockets flew further than the 150 km? What is the mean distance of the rockets? What is the spread, what is the standard deviation of the mean distance flown?

If the mean value is more than 150 km, that is a breach (still has been in the report). If more than 1/3 flew more than 150 km, we need to discuss wether it can be counted as a breach or not.

If you find something illegal by chance, is that the crime?
I would say it is a crime when you start to look for where this illegal came from and how you can get more of that source.

You’re D A M N straight it’s the crime.
So now we can’t arrest a guy who possess 100 lbs. of marijuana in his car? We have to catch him getting more of it…? That’s rediculous

Seems like i didn’t make my point clear.
Assume the following: You yourself by chance find something illegal, you pick it up to examine it.
Wether you commit a crime or not depends on what you decide then:
If you drop it, you are safe.
Think of you find a knife full of blood on the floor. You pick it up, does that make you a murderer?
If on the other hand you follow that illegal thing (say: you try to find out how to make those rockets fly more than 150 km with every try, or take the knife to commit a murder on your own or find the marihuana and go to look where you could get more of it), then you commit a crime.
The purpose behind is of importance.

[Yanny]

U.N. weapons inspectors have found a missile program in Iraq which violates the U.N. resolution.

Actually, it was a mistake made by the Weapons inspectors. They estimated the range of the missle incorrectly. British and French intelligence services both agreed that the inspectors were erroneous, and later the CIA agreed. So, the “Smoking Gun” was no more than a bad guess.

[Xi]

In the Internet Age I hear that …

90% of the world is against the war, …

Bush = Hitler (when Saddam Hussein has killed millions of his neighbors and killed tens of thousands of his own people (I won’t mention the millions of his own people he has starved to supply his army and build dozens of palaces, some larger than Washington,DC [that’s 10 miles squared])…

all the signs at the Anti-Bush, Anti-Capitalism, Anti-War (my call) rally were exemplified by “Bush=Voldemeer”(sp.?, the Evil guy in the Harry Potter series), “No War for Oil”(mistakenly considered the anti-Bush, anti-war rallying call, when, in reality, it is the French Save-Our-Economy cry,) and “Bush + NATO + EU = War” (when, in reality, NATO and the EU are arguing internally over the war,) …

And the biggest world wide protest was organized in the shortest time by the socialists, anti-capitalists and the misinformed for the anti-capitalists, socialists, misinformed majority, and the minority communists.

This is enough proof for me to admit that the ignorant masses and misinformants have taken over the Internet!

Statistics on the “Whatever You Want to March for March”
were originally posted here. They were incorrect.
Please, see my following post entitled

CORRECTION

–----------------------------------------------------

:cry: :cry: LOSERS! (Yes, we all lose in war :roll: . Nobody in their right mind likes/wants war.)

[Xi]

Try this webpage at FrontPage Magazine …

http://206.183.2.199/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=6183

For the view of an Ex-Communist, David Horowitz.

I love guys like this! They see the truth and must tell the truth as their life stories lead them to it. Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist is another convert. Which MICE (reason for becoming a traitor) do they attribute to these gentlemen?

[Guest]

@Yanny:

You do know we fit under both those categories? According to Sean Hannity, as recently as October, we import 300,000 barrels of crude oil per day.

MILTECH : We supported Iraq v Iran (the lesser of two evils … kinda like capitalism v any other choice.)
OIL : Last I heard the US had dropped it’s MAJOR Iraqi oil imports by 1992 and had instituted limited Iraqi oil imports in the Oil for Food and Medical Supplies agreement (one of the points of the seventeen sanctions agreeed upon by the UN … if you don’t like it don’t ask President Bush to get UN approval of any invasion…dat would be hypocritical :P .

PS - I have asked my power suppliers to get their oil from non-Mideast sources.
PPS- I buy my gas @ Sinclair, Phillips, Sunoco or Citgo only. They buy oil only from non-Mideast countries 8) :wink: .

[Xi]

Something’s wrong with your fora!

I’m on autologin and it ain’t workin’!
–------------------------------------------
BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP!

[DeviantScripter]

@Xi:

In the Internet Age I hear that …

90% of the world is against the war, …

Bush = Hitler (when Saddam Hussein has killed millions of his neighbors and killed tens of thousands of his own people (I won’t mention the millions of his own people he has starved to supply his army and build dozens of palaces, some larger than Washington,DC [that’s 10 miles squared])…

all the signs at the Anti-Bush, Anti-Capitalism, Anti-War (my call) rally were exemplified by “Bush=Voldemeer”(sp.?, the Evil guy in the Harry Potter series), “No War for Oil”(mistakenly considered the anti-Bush, anti-war rallying call, when, in reality, it is the French Save-Our-Economy cry,) and “Bush + NATO + EU = War” (when, in reality, NATO and the EU are arguing internally over the war,) …

And the biggest world wide protest was organized in the shortest time by the communists, socialists, anti-capitalists and the misinformed for the anti-capitalists, socialists, misinformed majority, and the minority communists.

This is enough proof for me to admit that the ignorant masses and misinformants have taken over the Internet!

Please, note that in the day of instant communication, a generous estimate put the total # of marchers/protestors @ 2 1/2 million (that’s 2 1/2 thousand thousands.) Figured into the world population of 6,274,000,000 (my figure extended from US estimates for the world as of Feb. 1, 2003.) this is 2% of the world population. In the Prenet days the @s would be multiplied by 1,000 making the anti-war # 2,5000,000 (1/3 of the world population). However, in the Internet age, it is only appropriate to multiply the marchers by 100 or less, making the anti-war #s more like 250,000,000 (1/25 of the world population.)
–----------------------------------------------------

:cry: :cry: LOSERS! (Yes, we all lose in war :roll: . Nobody in their right mind likes/wants war.)

Okay, everytime I see the peaceniks out in full-force, it gets harder and harder to take them seriously. Let me explain why.

1.) Hypocrisy
These people protest against American “imperialism”, and about how we’re going to kill thousands and thousands of Iraqi’s. Where were they the last 12 years?, when Saddam was methodically murdering thousands of people every year. I didn’t hear a peep from them, did you? Therefore, it makes me VERY skeptical that their agenda is really about compassion for Iraqi civilians. :roll:

2.) Ignorace
All these people know how to do is to criticize America. Where is the constructive alternative that they’re proposing? There is none. These people haven’t even stopped to consider what pacifism (or appeasement if you prefer) might result in. We tried appeasement in the 30’s…it didn’t work.

Another example of ignorance is Congressmen Jim McDermott. This guy seems to think he’s actually helping the anti-war movement. He said that Bush was making up his own policy of “pre-emptive” war, and that never in the history of this country have we attacked someone without being directly attacked first. C’mon. Do we really need to go down the list? :o

3.) Stupidity
Their arguments are WEAK. (These are straight from a photograph of the protest in Washington DC:

“No war for oil.” - That’s the best they could come up with?

“Regime change here, not Iraq.” - That’s really patriotic… :roll:

“Legalize pot.” - :lol: :lol: :lol:

[cystic crypt]

@Deviant:Scripter:

Okay, everytime I see the peaceniks out in full-force, it gets harder and harder to take them seriously. Let me explain why.

1.) Hypocrisy
These people protest against American “imperialism”, and about how we’re going to kill thousands and thousands of Iraqi’s. Where were they the last 12 years?, when Saddam was methodically murdering thousands of people every year. I didn’t hear a peep from them, did you? Therefore, it makes me VERY skeptical that their agenda is really about compassion for Iraqi civilians. :roll:

2.) Ignorace
All these people know how to do is to criticize America. Where is the constructive alternative that they’re proposing? There is none. These people haven’t even stopped to consider what pacifism (or appeasement if you prefer) might result in. We tried appeasement in the 30’s…it didn’t work.

Another example of ignorance is Congressmen Jim McDermott. This guy seems to think he’s actually helping the anti-war movement. He said that Bush was making up his own policy of “pre-emptive” war, and that never in the history of this country have we attacked someone without being directly attacked first. C’mon. Do we really need to go down the list? :o

3.) Stupidity
Their arguments are WEAK. (These are straight from a photograph of the protest in Washington DC:

“No war for oil.” - That’s the best they could come up with?

“Regime change here, not Iraq.” - That’s really patriotic… :roll:

“Legalize pot.” - :lol: :lol: :lol:

1. Criticizing a “civilized” world power and using reason to prevent them from starting a war is hoped to be more fruitful than using these same methods to negotiate with an apparently evil regime are hopefully different things. Unfortunately many of us “peaceniks” are beginning to realize that this is incorrect.
2. You’re right - there are few apparent alternative options on the table. Irrespective of the ludicrous statements of whatsisname, I don’t see Iraq pulling all the stops to blow up the world/Israel in the near future. Continued negotiation, increased inspections while not revealling new WMD are prolonging the slaughter and destruction of a country. We don’t seem to know the language Saddam communicates in. We believe it to be via force and might, but that doesn’t appear to be working. This is why alternatives must continue to be sought. Why are you in such a hurry? Are they pointing a gun? I think that Saddam’s regime would topple much more easily without his countrymen (who hate him) rallying around him to defeat America (who they hate worse)
3. There are many intellegent people against the wholesale destruction of Iraqi’s. It’s too bad that protest draws out the lunatics and weirdos.

[Guest]

@Deviant:Scripter:

1.) Hypocrisy
These people protest against American “imperialism”, and about how we’re going to kill thousands and thousands of Iraqi’s. Where were they the last 12 years?, when Saddam was methodically murdering thousands of people every year. I didn’t hear a peep from them, did you? Therefore, it makes me VERY skeptical that their agenda is really about compassion for Iraqi civilians. :roll:

Ok, as you USies are only out to “disarm Saddam” and change the regime: you then surely wouldn’t if the UN allowed you to go in under a … say french-russian high command, with a … say chinese-german control over the government there after the war?
I mean, that still would fulfill all that you (officially) want.

BTW, i could agree to such a thing much easier than to an US dominated invasion.
For the not hearing a peep: you have not been in europe. There the whole mistreatment of the Iraqi people was brought back to our minds by hte “peaceniks” every now and then.
As well, there is a lot of talk about the children in the south of Iraq that suffer from cancer and can’t get hte treatment they need… why is the talk only of those children in the south? Is there a higher rate of cancer there? If yes, could that have some connection to depleted uranium lying around there, being left from a victor in a previous war who doesn’T care about civilians?

2.) Ignorace
All these people know how to do is to criticize America. Where is the constructive alternative that they’re proposing? There is none. These people haven’t even stopped to consider what pacifism (or appeasement if you prefer) might result in. We tried appeasement in the 30’s…it didn’t work.

see above: that is a proposal :).
And: there is a difference between appeasement and pacifism. Appeasement is giving in to demands, that is not what the UN is doing. It’s rather Saddam trying to appease the UN at the moment (not that he has any other other option).

… He said that Bush was making up his own policy of “pre-emptive” war, and that never in the history of this country have we attacked someone without being directly attacked first. C’mon. Do we really need to go down the list?

First: AFAIR Bush made pre-emptive strikes part of the new “defensive doctrine”. Second: Are you pround of all your unprovoked attacks?

3.) Stupidity
Their arguments are WEAK. (These are straight from a photograph of the protest in Washington DC:

“No war for oil.” - That’s the best they could come up with?

If it is not the truth, then the above proposal should not be a problem for you.

“Regime change here, not Iraq.” - That’s really patriotic… :roll:

Yeah, great: Whoever doesn’t follow my line is my enemy……
is there a need to be a patriot? Give me one reason why you must be one.
IS someone who is not a patriot some kind of second class human or second class citizen? Do you have to love or respect your country and what it stands for??
I guess for you someone who is not patriotic is a commie, coward, traitor etc… at least you get close to that kind of talk.