A Brit says "Americans will die for liberty."

[carpro]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/...WAVCBQWIV0?xml=/opinion/2006/08/11/do1102.xml

Americans will die for liberty
By Andrew Gimson
(Filed: 11/08/2006)

EXCERPT



The Americans are more old-fashioned than us, and what is equally admirable, they are not ashamed of being old-fashioned. They know Churchill was a great man, so they put his house on the map. There is a kind of Englishman to whom this sort of behaviour seems painfully unsophisticated.

We are inclined, in our snobbish way, to dismiss the Americans as a new and vulgar people, whose civilisation has hardly risen above the level of cowboys and Indians. Yet the United States of America is actually the oldest republic in the world, with a constitution that is one of the noblest works of man. When one strips away the distracting symbols of modernity - motor cars, skyscrapers, space rockets, microchips, junk food - one finds an essentially 18th-century country. While Europe has engaged in the headlong and frankly rather immature pursuit of novelty - how many constitutions have the nations of Europe been through in this time? - the Americans have held to the ideals enunciated more than 200 years ago by their founding fathers.

SNIP

But lest these impressions of the United States seem unduly favourable, it should be added that the Americans have not remained in happy possession of their free constitution without cost. Thomas Jefferson warned that the tree of liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots. To the Americans, the idea that freedom and democracy exact a cost in blood is second nature.

SNIP

The Americans' tactics in Iraq, and their sanction for Israel's tactics in Lebanon, have given rise to astonishment and anger in Europe. It may well be that those tactics are counter-productive, and that the Americans and Israelis need to take a different approach to these ventures if they are ever to have any hope of winning hearts and minds.

But when the Americans speak of freedom, we should not imagine, in our cynical and worldly-wise way, that they are merely using that word as a cloak for realpolitik. They are not above realpolitik, but they also mean what they say.

These formidable people think freedom is so valuable that it is worth dying for.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Freedom is worth dying for, it's also worth killing for.

 

[fromtheright]

carpro,

Thanks very much for posting this. It is wonderful to see those on the other side of the pond who "get us". It also makes me proud that our heritage of freedom was inspired by our Founders' British forefathers.

 

[Jim1999]

Just to bring you back into reality, we (Brits) also had three things to say about Americans in England during the war years: "They are over-sexed, over-paid and over here..."

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Revmitchell]

Thank you Carpo!:thumbs:

 

[carpro]

Just to bring you back into reality, we (Brits) also had three things to say about Americans in England during the war years: "They are over-sexed, over-paid and over here..."

Cheers,

Jim

I've heard that before.

With so many of Britain's finest away fighting in other parts of the world, I'm sure there was some...angst about all those Yanks being in Britain.

That sentiment is usually followed by some form of appreciation for the help we provided to you.

 

[The Galatian]

It is embarassing to hear such high praise from a citizen of another nation, doubly so, because so many Americans lately have seemed willing to part with essential Constitutional freedoms, just to gain a little safety.

Nevertheless, the evidence seems to show that people are waking up to the real threat, and are taking it seriously.

One nitpick; the oldest existing republic in the world is San Marino, and the oldest in the world would be Rome prior to the Principate. Interestingly, people back then also surrendered their liberties for a strong leader who promised to protect them.

The Roman Republic died pretty much the way the American one might die.

 

[LadyEagle]

Thank you Carpo!:thumbs:

:thumbs: :thumbs: :thumbs:

 

[El_Guero]

Carpro

Thanks! :thumbs:

Wayne

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/...WAVCBQWIV0?xml=/opinion/2006/08/11/do1102.xml

Americans will die for liberty
By Andrew Gimson
(Filed: 11/08/2006)

EXCERPT



The Americans are more old-fashioned than us, and what is equally admirable, they are not ashamed of being old-fashioned. They know Churchill was a great man, so they put his house on the map. There is a kind of Englishman to whom this sort of behaviour seems painfully unsophisticated.

We are inclined, in our snobbish way, to dismiss the Americans as a new and vulgar people, whose civilisation has hardly risen above the level of cowboys and Indians. Yet the United States of America is actually the oldest republic in the world, with a constitution that is one of the noblest works of man. When one strips away the distracting symbols of modernity - motor cars, skyscrapers, space rockets, microchips, junk food - one finds an essentially 18th-century country. While Europe has engaged in the headlong and frankly rather immature pursuit of novelty - how many constitutions have the nations of Europe been through in this time? - the Americans have held to the ideals enunciated more than 200 years ago by their founding fathers.

SNIP

But lest these impressions of the United States seem unduly favourable, it should be added that the Americans have not remained in happy possession of their free constitution without cost. Thomas Jefferson warned that the tree of liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots. To the Americans, the idea that freedom and democracy exact a cost in blood is second nature.

SNIP

The Americans' tactics in Iraq, and their sanction for Israel's tactics in Lebanon, have given rise to astonishment and anger in Europe. It may well be that those tactics are counter-productive, and that the Americans and Israelis need to take a different approach to these ventures if they are ever to have any hope of winning hearts and minds.

But when the Americans speak of freedom, we should not imagine, in our cynical and worldly-wise way, that they are merely using that word as a cloak for realpolitik. They are not above realpolitik, but they also mean what they say.

These formidable people think freedom is so valuable that it is worth dying for.

 

[Revmitchell]

It is embarassing to hear such high praise from a citizen of another nation, doubly so, because so many Americans lately have seemed willing to part with essential Constitutional freedoms, just to gain a little safety.

Nevertheless, the evidence seems to show that people are waking up to the real threat, and are taking it seriously.

One nitpick; the oldest existing republic in the world is San Marino, and the oldest in the world would be Rome prior to the Principate. Interestingly, people back then also surrendered their liberties for a strong leader who promised to protect them.

The Roman Republic died pretty much the way the American one might die.

Maybe you could say that one day to the more than 2400 Americans who lost their lives on Sept 11 2001.

How many Americans must give their life by accident to support your do nothing ideology.

"Just to gain a little saftey". I am astonished that you or anyone have the nerve to suggest such a thing. If the President wants to moniter incoming calls from terrorists then he has my permission. That way my wife and children are "A little safer" thanks to him. And fortunately for my wife and children you are not in charge of this.

 

[Daisy]

Maybe you could say that one day to the more than 2400 Americans who lost their lives on Sept 11 2001.

Everyone dies. It's how you live that counts.

How many Americans must give their life by accident to support your do nothing ideology.

Refusing to surrender constitutional liberties is certainly not "do nothing".

"Just to gain a little saftey". I am astonished that you or anyone have the nerve to suggest such a thing. If the President wants to moniter incoming calls from terrorists then he has my permission. That way my wife and children are "A little safer" thanks to him. And fortunately for my wife and children you are not in charge of this.

Oh come now, who has objected to "incoming calls from terrorists" being monitored! Why not answer the real objection instead of creating these strawmen? If our real objection is wrong or misguided, you should be able to show how and why. If not, perhaps you should rethink your position.

 

[Revmitchell]

Everyone dies. It's how you live that counts.

Refusing to surrender constitutional liberties is certainly not "do nothing".

Oh come now, who has objected to "incoming calls from terrorists" being monitored! Why not answer the real objection instead of creating these strawmen? If our real objection is wrong or misguided, you should be able to show how and why. If not, perhaps you should rethink your position.

What are you talking about?

 

[The Galatian]

Maybe you could say that one day to the more than 2400 Americans who lost their lives on Sept 11 2001.

They are dead, and it is a slander on them to say that they would have supported a loss of liberties to make us safer.

How many Americans must give their life by accident to support your do nothing ideology.

Rather, I have a "do something right" ideology. There were strong and effective controls in place before Bush took office. We were tracking suspected foreign nationals in the US. We had a program to track Al Qaeda's finanacial dealings. We had terrorism at the top of the list of priorities. Bush changed all that. Then, when the inevitable happened, he said the problem was that we had too many freedoms, and he needed us to give some of them up.

"Just to gain a little saftey". I am astonished that you or anyone have the nerve to suggest such a thing.

It was Thomas Jefferson, actually. Notorious terrorist supporter, he. :laugh:

If the President wants to moniter incoming calls from terrorists then he has my permission.

However, to monitor the calls of American citizens, he needs a court order. And he doesn't need your permission, he needs the permission of a judge. That's the law.

That way my wife and children are "A little safer" thanks to him.

Rather, you were placed in a little more danger, thanks to Bush. Granted, he restored some of the safeguards he removed earlier. But still he did it. BTW, not one illegal wiretap has produced any convictions of terrorists.

How much danger is there? Let's say 3,000 Americans have died from terrorism in the past 12 years (almost all of them, mind you, after Bush removed Constitutionally-legal controls on terrorists, most of which are now back in place) in that same period of time, over a million Americans have died from accidental causes, and about 150,000 from homicides. (9/11 raised the homicide rate by about 15% that year) Over the 12 year period, you had about 0.001% chance of being killed by a terrorist in America. And some fools think that is enough danger to give up essential liberties. As Jefferson remarked, a people who agree to that deal will soon have neither safety nor liberty.

And fortunately for my wife and children you are not in charge of this.

Fortunately for America, more and more Americans are realizing what Jefferson said.

 

[Revmitchell]

You throw words like slander around, and make baseless claims of clinton and our President with no support or evidence.

The President didnt remove any controls.

 

[Daisy]

What are you talking about?

What do you mean, what am I talking about? I quoted your remark and answered it, in succession.

Was there a particular word, phrase or idea you would like explained?

 

[Revmitchell]

What do you mean, what am I talking about? I quoted your remark and answered it, in succession.

Was there a particular word, phrase or idea you would like explained?

Oh come now, who has objected to "incoming calls from terrorists" being monitored! Why not answer the real objection instead of creating these strawmen? If our real objection is wrong or misguided, you should be able to show how and why. If not, perhaps you should rethink your position

 

[Jim1999]

I object to monitoring any phone calls. How does one identify a terrorist from an ordinary citizen? Take liberty from one, take it from all. I have read of too many innocent people hauled over the coals on a suspicion of being a "terrorist". Will I be next because I have a beard and a different accent?

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Revmitchell]

Everyone dies. It's how you live that counts.

You very casually dismiss the deaths of those in the WTC. Sad really. But I guess that is the best defense you could come up with. Only goes to show how far the left will go to maintain there baseless accusations and agenda.

Refusing to surrender constitutional liberties is certainly not "do nothing".

Yea, continue your senseless agenda. The left is being cheered on by the terrorists. good job!:thumbs:

 

[El_Guero]

No one can say they have truly lived until they have defended freedom. Until they are ready to lay down their lives - they are cowards IMHO.

"[W]ho has objected to "incoming calls from terrorists" being monitored" - that was what the judge did . . . that started all of this arguing and your continued and repeated musings about protecting the rights of terrorists under the Constitution of the USA.

Why you think American soldiers should die in the field of combat to protect a terrorist phone call beats me. :BangHead: :BangHead:

 

[El_Guero]

Jim

As a Canadian, you really do have a different set of rules. If they does not monitor the calls of terrorists, then so be it.

Wayne

I object to monitoring any phone calls. How does one identify a terrorist from an ordinary citizen? Take liberty from one, take it from all. I have read of too many innocent people hauled over the coals on a suspicion of being a "terrorist". Will I be next because I have a beard and a different accent?

Cheers,

Jim