Does loving America and our Constitution require citizens to have to denounce the rest of the world?

Question

I find it really strange that if United states citizens complain about the decisions of the President and congress, people think that you HATE the United States. I think that because U.S. citizens voice their compassion for others in the world besides people here in the U.S. they are seen as enemies of their own country! Have you seen this attitude too?

Andy, I think you need to re-read the question.Illiterate indeed!

Answer 1

Yes its bizarre.They think if you disagree you are "emboldening the enemy" or a traitor. They actually say if you don't like it leave. I wonder if they realize the irony in them saying that? Probably not.

Answer 2

In countries with no tradition of free press and free speech the only model for criticism is uprising. That is why our aspiration to spread democracy to the ME (and thereby reap much global goodness) are niave. It's pretty clear that democracy in and of itself is no garuantee of partnership, civil relations, and peace.

This is another arrogant error by the current administration. They don't recognize cultural differences when jumpstarting countries with our notion of democracy. And there's a sense that democracy will result in civil international relations and peace.

So people in the ME don't realize our criticism of our government isn't insurrection, and people in this administration don't realize the pre-conditions for, and limitations of democracy.

Answer 3

Good point, this is a typical right wing knee jerk reaction, if you have an opinion on an issue you have a right to express it. If you can't criticize your leader openly you might as well be living in a tin pot dictator, banana republic instead of supposedly the world's greatest democracy.

Answer 4

I love America and am proud to be an American.
Just because I do not support the moron in the white house does not make me anti-American nor does it make me a terrorist supporter.
Most of the attitude comes form the hard-core right wingers.

Answer 5

Seriously, You appear to be Constitutionally illiterate. The US Constitution states that we are to abide in all treaties the US has entered into with other countries. And there is one treaty that Bush-Cheney love to violate.

International Laws Violated.
· Article 2 of the United Nations Charter. o Text of Article 2, Section 3- 4. “All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered. .... [and] refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” [UN Charter, Article 2, Sections 3,4]o Violation. The US used force to settle its dispute with Iraq, ignoring calls from UN Security Council members for a peaceful resolution. · Articles 39 - 50 of the United Nations Charter.o Summary of Articles 39-50. Articles 39 - 50 of the United Nations Charter clearly stipulate that no member state is authorized to use military force against another country without the UN Security Council first determining that certain criteria have been met. (1) There must be a material breach of its resolution; and (2) All nonmilitary and peaceful options to enforce the resolution must be fully exhausted. Once it has been decided that the necessary conditions for military action have been met, only the UN Security Council can authorize the use of military force. [UN Charter]o Violation. The United States and its conscripted coalition invaded Iraq without the approval of the UN Security Council. The Bush administration chose not to take the issue to the council because it knew that a resolution to use force against Iraq would not pass.· Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. o Summary of Article 51. Article 51 allows for a nation to use military force to defend itself only in cases of an ongoing or impending attack. It only provides this military solution as a temporary one –until the UN Security Council can find the appropriate peaceful response. The intention of this article was not to set criteria for the justification of war. Quite the contrary; its intent was to prevent conflicts from escalating into war. o Violation. The US and its conscripted coalition invaded Iraq - calling it a preemptive defense strike, a concept with no legal meaning - despite being unable to prove its allegations that it posed an imminent threat to the US Although the US claimed that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, that Iraq was developing these weapons, and that Iraq intended to use these weapons against the US, the US failed to provide any evidence to substantiate these claims. [Read more] UN weapons inspectors who examined suspected banned weapons facilities in Iraq found no support for the US assertions. [Read More] The US also alleged that Iraq had ties to terrorist groups and would likely provide these organizations with weapons of mass destruction. No evidence was presented to the UN to support the accusation. [Read More]
http://www.thefourreasons.org/iraqinvasion.html

The American Heritage Dictionary defines terrorism as "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons

Answer 6

I think all Americans have the right to speak their mind,but i think there is a line you should not cross. Calling Our president Nasty names and saying such hateful thing about America. Then i think one should zip their mouths.Name calling does nothing but show the one asking,their ignorance.