World Apologies
 

Not quite sure where to place this thread, since it crosses over several categories, and usually I just lurk down in the IotD forum. But anyway...

Some folks I know were seriously depressed at the recent political events involving the elections, and felt that it was necessary to let the world know that not everyone in America was hellbent on being supporters of the Bush Dynasty.

Hence, SorryEverybody.com. It was only a local idea, but after the first day of being up, it'd accquired 2 million hits, and now, just this evening, it made it onto a CNN broadcast.

There has been plenty of support for and against it, but currently, the submissions still pour in, so fast that while I was viewing their gallery, four more pages appeared on the list.

View the page, or make a submission, or send a donation, or send hate mail. Whatever. But some of the responses shown there I felt are at least worth a couple minutes of time.

What a wonderful site! I'm very impressed. :thumbsup:

belongs in the politics section...pure politics :thumbsdn:

I, for one, am not sorry for anything and I find it appalling that all those idiots would post pictures of themselves apologizing for our countries political process. :thumbsdn:

I got this ...

Wolf, this is the actual site name: http://72.3.131.10/ on my browser.

Is this one yours Syc?

Well I did put this link in the Politics forum, as seen here but that's okay. More exposure is good.

It's not so much the process they're sorry for, it's the results.

Same difference. It was a fair election, the person with the most votes won. No need to apologize to anyone.

So don't. If other people feel they need or want to, let 'em.

Yeah, you're right. If I look at it like they're apologizing for making a poor, ill informed decision to vote for the wrong person then I guess it makes sense that they're sorry. ;)

I think its interesting that the apologists are more concerned with the majority international opinion than they are the majority American opinion.

That is one of the reasons the candidate you supported was not elected.

So since Kerry can't kiss international butt from the White House, the apologists are compensating. I suppose that's ok.

We need a web site to apologize for the Americans who feel they need to apologize. "We are sorry World that some Americans feel the need to apologize to you."

I agree 404, no apologies coming from this American.

:D

I don't think we need to apologize, but I do think that even though the Electoral College happened to work this time, it should still be abolished. It's an old, antiquated system, and there is absolutely no reason why a vote in ohio should be more important than a vote in new mexico. It doesn't matter how many people live in a particular area, or population density. Each vote weighs the same. That's the fair way to do it.

Not all apologists voted for Kerry. Or voted at all.

These people are obviously pretty passionate about what they believe, and they have the right to post whatever they want on that site. Bush supporters of course won't agree with it, but that's life.

If they are that upset they could do like that guy at ground zero...

CNN
MSNBC
New York Post

I heard about that the other day. It's sad, but I think he's defeating his own cause. Sure, he'll get attention for a few days, but what he did isn't going to help change things when 2008 rolls around. :thumbsdn:

I voted for Kerry. But I would never put my picture up there.

I'm not going to apologize for my actions, because I did the right thing, voting for Kerry. I'm not going to apologize for Bush voters, because I'm not responsible for them. And I'm sure as hell not going to write things like "I didn't vote for Bush, so please don't bomb my town." That's just pathetic.

You don't truly believe that he put that much effort or thinking into this course of action do you? :rolleyes:

Nope, I'm sure he didn't. The guy obviously had lots of other problems to pull that kind of stunt. Defintely not a rational decision.

I nominate that guy for a political Darwin Award.

Wouldn't that be more along the lines of having Quayle as your running mate?

No, because having your name next to Quayle's wouldn't remove you from the gene pool.

If Bush supporters dislike the idea of that site so much, they can always put up one of their own saying that they are NOT sorry. You could have Bushies flipping the bird at the rest of the world or holding signs saying "You're next!"

If that site's not already up, I'd be shocked.

Very well said. :thumbsup:

Mari, - that's the problem. Bush supporters didn't choose Bush to flip off the planet. We voted for the president of the US not the US ambassador to planet earth.

Sure, I get a warm and fuzzy when our prez is popular with other leaders but that sure as hell isn't the basis for my vote when I close the curtain. As a matter of fact, there are quite a few foreign leaders that I specifically don't want our president to have good relations with.

Had Bush lost, Kerry would enjoy my full support and I sure as heck wouldn't apologise to anyone on behalf of Kerry supporters.


We are America and we are Americans, dammit!

Well ... he was drunk and stupid. I don't know what pisses me off more ... his essential desecration of the Ground Zero site (even the firefighters who worked the pile aren't killing themselves there), his disregard of (yes, the ridiculous) firearms laws of NYC, or the fact that if he were out to make a political statement, why didn't he leave a fucking note.

So again, he's going down as just another dumbass drunk in my ledger.

So what you're saying is that America can go it alone. That we need minimal, if any, world support in the war on terror or in, lets face it, an increasingly global economy. Check your ego, if we don't work *with* the rest of the world instead of in spite of it, we're not going to accomplish what we need to. Why not make the effort to get as much of the world on our side as possible?

Dear SEB,

I am sorry that we did not prepare and use more nuku-lar bombs at the end of WWII for more of you.

I am sorry you do not feel the peace and security of Jesus while taking over other hostile countries preparing to do us harm.

I am truly sorry that there isnt a way to split America into two separate countries, along with the people representing the "urban" vs "rural" philosophies.

And most of all, I am sorry that I do not have a full beer chaser with a full bottle of Southern Comfort directly in front of me at this time.

So many Americans think that we're invincible, ass-kickin' and the only worthwhile country on the planet that we can (and should) go it alone. It makes me very, very nervous.

It's an astounding combination. A massive "go it alone" foreign policy push at the same time as a massive outsourcing of real production to foreign nations and a massive escalation of foreign debt. Our economy is on a house of cards, and Bush wants to play the big bad lone wolf.

Precisely. I would clap if I weren't typing with one hand and wishing for a drink to fill the other...... :D 'sides drinkin' is cheaper than leaving North America....I call it the alcohol induced frontal lobotomy.

I agree we can't think of ourselves in that extreme of a view but if we go the other extreme then we would still be trying to get UN approval just to use harsh language with Saddam in 20 years, meanwhile who knows what damage he could cause worldwide and how many of his own people he could gas.
Its all about compromise.

Yes it is--and Mr. Bush chose not to compromise. He wanted to invade Iraq, and was willing to do so regardless of what the UN, many of our allies, and millions of American citizens thought. He didn't compromise one iota.

Well the opinion of the global intel community seems to be now quite clearly that Saddam was fairly harmless, unless of course you were an Iraqi but don't try and tell me the US doesn't like despotic regimes that kill and toture, it creates more of them than anyone else - including Saddam.

but how long do you wait on the UN ? He did wait years ... I am not trying to say I agree with what has happened over there but it is not like he went to the UN on Monday, asked for a resolution, didn't get it, and then on Tuesday he declared war...if you go through all the resolutions and the failures of those agreements (especially the ones dealing with inspections) it is my *humble* opinion that they waited long enough...Saddam was stalling and you had to question his motives.

Saddam said "we have no WMDs." And he was telling the truth.

How was he supposed to prove that he had no WMDs? How do you prove a negative? Each time the inspectors went into a facility and looked, they found no WMDs. Bush took this as evidence that he was hiding WMDs. Of course, if they found WMDs, Bush would also take that as evidence that they existed. Either way, Saddam was screwed.

Saddam didn't like the foreign weapons inspectors poking around HIS palaces, so he made it hard on them by making them wait a few hours before opening the gates to the buildings they wanted to see. Sure, he could have cooperated more, and maybe in hindsight he wishes that he had. But he did let the inspectors inspect even if his pride made him a little stubborn about it.

So because he didn't get his way from the UN lickety split, it's OK for him to do whatever he wants? It doesn't matter how long he waited; he didn't have the support of the UN, and for good reason. There was no compromise on anything from his end. He didn't care what anybody else thought and he did what he wanted. Plain and simple.

As for Saddam's "motives," it's pretty clear the guy was on an ego trip and just wanted to stay in power. It seems like his ego was his motivation for a lot of things.

The problem is that Bush supporters can't understand what a slap in the face his re-election feels to the rest of the world. The US IS the biggest kid on the block at the moment. Our actions impact everyone else. Bush has shown even our allies the back of his hand, and, as someone else commented, a complete refusal to compromise with our friends in the EU or anywhere else.

No, you wouldn't have to apologize to anybody.


Before anything, we are human beings sharing a small, finite planet with other human beings. We'd better start learning how to respect one another and understand each other's point of view. Being American doesn't give us the right to do anything we please, anywhere in the world and expect every other nation to sit on its hands while uttering a stream of praise and compliments for our actions.

there were also several times when Saddam stopped all inspections for months on end, he also stalled inspections on facilities for weeks, meanwhile lines of trucks arrived, packed up something (we guess) and drove away.... kinda strikes you as someone who had something to hide.

WMD or not, he was an evil piece of crap who belonged in a jail cell (fon't think you can argue that point).

And have you seen the picture of the MIG-29 that they found out in the desert?...if they can successfully hide a fighter jet, don't you think they could hide other things as well?

garnet, "lickety split"? So the question is how long do you wait? The UN was going to be held up for a long time on Iraq simply due to money, France, Germany and Russia simply had too many contracts in place in Iraq to lose so they would never have voted to go. Not saying we would have been any different if it had been our contracts at stake.

I don't have anything to say, I just like this. :D

I agree Saddam's a really bad guy, but there's a lot of people in other countries out there who think GWB is an "evil piece of crap" who belongs in a jail cell, too. Should they invade us without the support of the UN, too? It's all a matter of perspective.

He should have waited FOREVER and never invaded Iraq, in my opinion.


Not to mention the fact that those countries simply didn't believe that full-scale WAR was necessary or justified...

So you think there are hiddn WMDs somewhere in the desert? Bush himself has admitted that there were no WMDs after all.

No. Sadam was not a nice guy. But the Iraqis were better off under Saddam than under the US, and the US was better off before it invaded. This war was a bad idea all around.

Bush had a hard-on for Saddam and didn't listen to ANYONE who got between him and his prey. He alientated the world, and half his country. Our friends and allies were trying to save us from making a terrible mistake, and the Bush admin insulted them by calling them a bunch "chocolate making countries" and referring to the "freedom fries," etc.

I'm reminded of a mean drunk trying to leave a bar at the end of the night and fighting with his friends who try to take his car keys away from him. That's Bush in a nutshell.

the sad fact is that all the issues being discussed here is our OPINIONS of what has already taken place, what is still to take place and what would have taken place if some event in the past was different.

Saying our allies were trying to save us from making a big mistake implies they did not have their own agenda and we all do (face it)

Maybe if the US didn't invade then the world would all love us and we would have one hell of a parade ( :) ) .... or maybe NY or LA would have disappeared in a mushroom cloud. None of us can say.

you get to choose what you want to believe and if it happens to include rose colored glasses, that is your right! :browhappy

Wow, Saddam had NUCLEAR weapons along with the WMDs?

No, but Libya was well on the way.

Have we forgotten about North Korea again? By Bush's standards, they're the ones we should have invaded, on the premise of disarming the baddies and protecting its neighbors from WMDs. North Korea was (still is?) on the Axis of Evil list too. No one can prove Saddam had nukes because he didn't have nukes and wouldn't have had nukes for quite a while. Meanwhile, North Korea was over there waving its arms going "Hey look what I have! Pay attention to MEEEE!!" while pointing frantically at operational nuclear facilities and test missles that are already there, not merely in plans. And in the time most of America was looking at Iraq with blinders on, North Korea had its way and started up its nuke factory.

And then there's India. What about India? There's virtually no fundamental Christians in India and they have nukes. And they're right next door to all these Questionables, like Iran. Who's to say that...ohhh wait...many of our businesses are outsourcing jobs and moving whole divisions there, so we wouldn't want to go to war there. Yet. Okay. :smashfrea

My comment was merely to point out that NONE OF US KNOW. If you think you do, then you choose to believe a media source that said what you wanted to hear. Does the fact that no one has yet proved Saddam had WMD mean that he did not? Or that he would not have gone underground with either an attempt to make them or an attempt to buy they from N. Korea (will make the assumption that Iran would never give him one unless the fuse was lit :) ) You guess is as good as mine. I am just trying to not be cynical when I have to acknowledge the facts presented to me are from sources that have to be questioned every time.

Do you really think we invaded Iraq to save the Iraqi people. Considering how many brutal regimes we don't invade, not even counting our refusal to interfere in cases of outright genocide, I would argue the reason for the Iraqi invasion was political or strategic.

As a result of the invasion, we have 200 billion less to deal with our own issues, not to mention 1000+ soldiers lives lost and thousands more injured for life. How much would it have cost to keep the pressure on Iraq?

Let's see, did a massive invasion of their country and never found any WMDs, and the great President of these United States (i.e. the guy who started the war) ADMITTED that there are no WMDs. I think that's pretty good "proof."

never said we invaded Iraq for WMD...never said we did it to save the Iraqi people...so are you saying we SHOULD invade every country that has a brutal regime? As for the money, now you are putting a price on human life in Iraq (just making a point here).... now the US troops lost I agree is, in my mind, the mort horrific aspect of this whole thing. I think the war itself has been criminally mismanaged. I am not trying to defend Bush, just the US.

garnet, do you honestly think that you, or any of us, know what was found there and what was not? Be willing to bet we know 10% of the real details of what the hell is really going on. You want to think you know the truth when you have just read the same news stories that all of us have been fed, then that is your prerogative (and that is part of our freedom as well)

No but I would think the President of the US would know what's going on in Iraq. What would be the point of him admitting to the American people he was wrong about WMDs? Do you think he lied to us? Sorry, I don't get your point.

I'm walking right out of here.... :D

Are you saying that the adminstration found conclusive evidence, better than the aluminum tubes they trotted out, and deliberately suppressed that evidence, even when doing so cost them huge amounts of credibility and political capital?

If there was a shred of evidence supporting the invasion, this adminstration would be sending copies to every media outlet on the planet.

Well, it looks like the Luddites have discovered computers.

http://notsorryeverybody.com/

I agree...I am tired of arguing with everyone who apparently KNOWS EVERYTHING ABOUT EVERYTHING as my only point in this whole thread has been that we don't know all the facts and you get to draw your own BIASED conclusions..... too many people who didn't get their way and want to argue

I am outta here.....

When you don't know the facts, or are trying to prove a negative (logically impossible), don't you go on best known information? You know, years of weapons inspections finding nothing and effective (albeit choking) sanctions making sure nothing new comes in. Do you go on satellite readings that would have detected a handful of nuclear material showing up nothing? Do you go on the fact that there was obviously an agenda to invade the country and that the bushies were simply waiting for an opportunity to go in? Do you go on the fact that even the biggest proponents of the WMD idea have had to come back, wip the egg off of their faces and admit they were wrong? Or do you just bomb the fuck out of the entire planet because we don't know if any nation actually has WMD?

As far as defending the US, the best thing for America to do is to get its head out of its ass and admit the truth: We fucked up, we're sorry, and we need help. Because we did fuck up, we went to war on a false pretense. Whether we believed it to be true is notwithstanding. We are sorry, or at least we should be. We made a mess in Iraq and, while life is indeed better for the average citizen, it's also better for the average terrorist. And we do need help: the cost of this war in money and lives is higher than we ever predicted, and while it won't bankrupt the nation, it'd be a nice gesture to help put the stop-loss on our financial situation and for me not to have to go to my good friend from high-school's funeral in a couple of days. I wonder how many other graduating classes are going to have memorial pages in the program at their 5 year reunion...

I think the word you are looking for is "satirists."