Will you support Obama if he invades Iran?

But it won't happen.

I'd have to be convinced of a pretty significant threat level to even think about such a thing.

I will not support ANYONE who buys into this Iran fraud. Or any other wars that have nothing to do with the United States of America.

I still took part in it, though... How stupid am I?

When did Obama ever even HINT a "invading Iran".

:puke:

:eyes:

SARCASM

We should be so lucky.

so i'll pass on surrendering to canada.

i enjoy visiting there, though.

I ask merely for information.

i find that many americans do not know how much more strongly canada restricts free speech.

i get most of my case law information from the CCLA (Canadian Civil Liberties Association). I am also a trainer in hate crimes investigation and have attended joint training with canadian cops (RCMP etc.).

they have significantly limited rights in regards to "hate speech", such that (among other things) .

essentially, in the US, hate speech is protected. in canada, france, the UK etc. it is criminal. i've investigated hate CRIMES, but in my country (the USA) a hate crime is something that is already a crime (vandalism, assault, etc.) that is motivated by bias towards an individuals perceived membership in a group (race, sex, orientation, etc). in canada, merely (publically) expressing hate towards said groups is a crime.



sections 318 and 319 of the criminal code make it a crime to (among other things) willfully promote hatred against an "identifiable group".

section 319(2) (SEE THE KEEGSTRA CASE) was used to prohibit the public claims that the holocaust did not occur.


then there's section 13 of the canadian human rights act...
(from... http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/online_hate/when_is_hate_a_crime.cfm)
Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act prohibits the communication by means of a telecommunication undertaking (including the Internet) of messages that are likely to expose a person to hatred or contempt on the basis of:

race

national or ethnic origin

colour

religion

age

sex

sexual orientation

marital status

family status

disability

conviction for which a pardon has been granted
In January 2002, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ordered Ernst Zundel to cease and desist from publishing hate messages on the Zundelsite because his writings violate section 13. However, the Zundelsite continues to post hateful messages because it is located in the United States and is, therefore, outside the jurisdiction of the Canadian tribunal.

I thought it might be something along those lines. I have heard of these cases, one recently involving a high-profile holocaust denier who was deported to...Germany maybe, and Chomsky came out on his side of the legal controversy.

It's difficult issue. I am in favor of letting people say whatever they want, but I find it difficult to tolerate the fact that our country's political discourse has been so debased by liars. I think the idea of banning "hate speech" is probably unwise, But shouldn't there be some limits on telling lies to the public? Holocaust denial doesn't bother me because it's hate speech, it bothers me because it is not true.

Anyway, thanks for the info.

my problem with the government banning speech that "isn't true" is it makes GOVERNMENT the arbiter of what is true and what isn't.

think about that for a second.

what's "true?" howard zinn's history or your 9th grade textbook?

etc.

the entire point of the 1st amendment is that we vest (and trust) CITIZENS to be able to access unpopular and diverse ideas, to discuss them freely, and to decide FOR THEMSELVES what the truth is.

that's a very radical concept and one reason why i so love the USA.

that's an incredible responsibility to rest with the people. and we are about the only nation on earth that does so.

But if we are the only nation to trust its people this way, then we have an obligation to assess the results against other nations, such as Canada. Personally, I'm not sure the results justify total confidence. I understand mistrusting the government, but there are standards of truth even in commercial advertising. If you tell an outright lie in a commercial ("People who brush with Crest get better gas mileage"), there are legal repercussions. But if you tell a similarly faslifiable lie in a political opinion column, no one can touch you. I'm not sure that's a boon to the public.

freedom ALWAYS is.

do we give up freedom for some "civility?"

canada, in their parliamentarian debates actually made that exact argument. their decision was YES. they do.

otoh, regardless of whether it would be good policy to do what you propose, it would be unconstitutional.

our constitution protects us from flavor of the day rights restrictions like this.

you can be sued for slander or libel, of course. and of course there are the commercial examples.

the latter are NOT fundamental to free speech and political discourse.

the 1st amendment was designed to protect unpopular and controversial ideas. much of what we accept as true NOW, was "obviously false' in the past and vice versa.

recall that galileo was excommunicated for daring to upset scientific authority (and of course in his day science and religion were inseperable).

our freedom matters.

the best antidote to bad speech is good speech. not banning or prosecuting speech.

fortunately, our constitution means we do NOT get to ban speech based on whether it's a "boon to the public".

the power rests with the people. i like it that way. i like freedom

I'm just thinking along the lines of "what is the best thing for a country", not advocating changing the constitution etc.

And we give up freedom for a lot of things. Security, for instance. We debated giving up some freedom for increased security, and our decision was yes. I didn't agree with that one.

If I could give up my right to deny the holocaust and get socialized medicine in return, I'd probably go for that. Not that there's any direct relationship there, just a for instance. It doesn't seem to me that the countries we're talking about are really suffering under Orwellian thought-oppression.

giving up freedom of speech for socialized medicine.

i'd like to see the latter, but god knows i won't give up the former, nor will that choice be necessary.

i actually think several countries are moving towards orwellian thought suppression in europe. it's a slow grind.

but i also have NO problem being the singular/unique community that values freedom of speech. i am comfortable with individuality, iconoclastism and breaking away from the norm.

But at least someone is speaking out for those poor oppressed Canadians, long denied the right to deny the Holocaust by their totalitarian regime. /sarcasm

and think many aspects of their country's governance are superior (health care for instance).

but when it comes to the their lack of protection for free speech, i criticize them.

i visit canada frequently. love canada.

As soon as they get someone better than Stevie Harper in charge, I welcome the invasion!

who's talking about invading Iran?

Not no, but FUCK no.

Says it all.

What was the question?

It would be the most foolish thing to do in this situation.

stupid poll. Obama is not going to invade Iran.

He won't do that.

:wtf:

If Iran does something to deserve it, then yes. if it's just some Chimplike horseshit, then no.

:rofl:

The State Department is conspiring with Twitter to foment all these protests, y'know :crazy:

Who has made these suggestions? The Grays? The Illuminati? The reverse vampires?

contemplated any military attack on Iran and work actively to remove them from office.

Any military attack on Iran go over about as well as if Iran's hardline Mullahs called for military attacks on the United States and it would have approximately the same reaction from ordinary Iranians that such things would elicit from ordinary Americans.

Even the most moderate, westernized and liberal Iranians are still a very nationalistic people who immediately unite against any foreign invaders and the same people who are now marching for democracy would fight to the death to defend their country from invaision.

The reality is that nothing, absolutely nothing would harm the pro-democracy and pro-reform forces more in Iran than for their pro-democracy and pro-reform forces to be perceived as stooges for the United States.

Strong threatening rhetoric or actions from America would for absolute certainty strengthen the hand of the hardliners and unite the country against those who are seen as threatening them..

Outside interference would be the kiss of death for the pro-democracy and pro-reform forces - An Invasion would result in catastrophic consequences for the entire region that would make our problems in Iraq look like a Sunday school picnic.

n/t

yes.

So I doubt a full scale invasion.

eom

Then of course most people here and in the US will be supporting it by the time the brainwashing is complete (probably including a false-flag attack).

Many or most will come to regret it once it reaches the well-known phase in which "it was wrong to invade but now we're there and we can't just leave or chaos will ensue."

Again, an invasion will NEVER happen. Simple reason: Iran would win. Iraq and Afghanistan would be lost as well. A bombing, unfortunately, is possible.

For an idea of how well people withstand major propaganda campaigns, keep in mind about 1/3 of DU supported the Iraq invasion of 2003.

Anyway, it won't be Iran. Darfur, possibly.

More likely, nowhere, because the long-term foreign sponsors of the US deficit and thus the Pentagon are starting to pull out of the exports-for-dollars-for-Tbills dollar merry-go-round.

Not at all.

I might, but he hasn't done even that so no worries.

I haven't heard ANYONE talking about invading Iran. Well, not since January 20th, that is.

Just stirring up some stuff? :shrug:

should fucking enlist or stfu.

he's smarter than that.

If that crazy little tin-pot dictator over there lobs a missile at.... anyone really, then sure.

For pretty much anything else? Not likely.

Hello mcfly?

Unlike our previous President, he isn't stupid.

While we, the American people, can stand in solidarity with the Iranian people, the American government is fresh out of diplomatic cards it can play to deal with this, mostly because of the Mossadiq thing, the support of the Shah and his torture regime, and decades of retarded saber-rattling.

And bombing or invading is completely insane. Look how well it worked out in Iraq...

I just love Gordon Lightfoot.

Or Loverboy and Platinum Blonde for that matter.

the first rocket fire, etc.

Thing would have to get alot worse before I even considered supporting putting boots on the ground, like civil war bad.

The poll doesn't have enough options.

Does anybody have the balls to justify their vote? (Or ovaries, though I have my doubts that we have any female warmongers here)

Don't hold your breath.