Burn the US Flag

They burn the US flag in England in protest, as well as the union jack.

HAven't seen too muvh of it in Canada for any flag, protesters here just fight to free the fish and stuff, it's not really focused on the US as much as people dislike OUR government for following the US.

Flag burning is not a Canadian thing though, yet I am sure it must have happened over time.

I wouldn't even burn a country's flag, I grew up to actually respect any country's colours.

BUT, it shouldn't be illegal to do so in protest, it's not like someone's lighting the flag on top of Target on fire. There isn't a SHORTAGE of flags that's for sure.

But if we are truly allowed freedom to protest and show our personal convictoins, then restricting such practice, outside of those places where it is a danger, is the same as restricting freedom of expression in my eyes.

I concur, I'm not a flag burner but wouldn't disallow someone else doing it, especially by law.

Sad that our Congress isn't worrying about more important issues...oh, well.

What you're going to see is that flag-burning will become a wedge issue. Some poor schmuk running for office will come out against a consitutional amendment and then he'll have his patriotism attacked. It'll get splashed all over the TV news and everyone will have to take a side. Rednecks will go wild and run to the polls to vote against those who want to see the USA turned into a godless, commie-luvin, left-wing wasteland. Meanwhile, the "patriots" will be quietly working to keep their laws off big corporations.

It's easier to react than to think. God bless the USA - we need it!

have to say is.

Everyone has the right to burn the flag anytime or anywhere they wish.
they also have the right to be shot on sight by anyone expressing their right to bare(sp)arms.

that seems like an entirely fair solution.

I personally feel that anyone that needs to go to the level of burning the flag because they disagree with something the goverment has done should be deported to North Korea to live,just to get a taste of unfair goverment.

My great grandfather and my grandfather both served this country in war time so that we could have our freedom.
I have the flags from both of their funerals, and contrary to what some people think the flag is more than just a symbol of our goverment or a piece of cloth.Old Glory is a symbol of freedom and sacrifice and should have that honor bestowed upon it NOT FORCED UPON IT.

The most important reason why?

Does our government not have more important issues to tackle then someone burning our flag?

Now let me make it clear -- if some punk/bum/vagrant type just completely and consistently disrepects the flag -- burns it, walks on it, rips it, urinates on it, etc. etc. -- that's not to say I won't be mad. In that case I think a tire iron to the back of his head would be a nice thing to happen.

But I don't think our federal government should spend their resources of time and money to pass it as an amendment.

At the time of the beginning of the war on Iraq where a US team of young hockey players was booed as they arrived...many Quebecois were deeply embarassed and ashamed though - there was an outpouring of sympathy for these kids.

In Toronto, we stand respectfully for US anthem, but I hear that the Canadian anthem has been boooed in some rougher ball parks....seems to matter less now that Toronto is not a contender and Montreal is no more.

Toronto fans do boo former players, but only the ones who dissed us after they leave. Dave Winfield, as a Yankee, killed a seagull with a warmup throw and was booed. Later he became a Jay and was well loved for his charity work.

I was at one of the last games in Montreal. The stadium was tired. Got great seats and watched Sammy Sosa knock one out. Sad, since they once had a great team. The year of the strike (93) there was a possibility of a Toronto/Montreal World Series.

I have heard singers sing a bilingual version of the anthem in an English part of Canada, and have heard boos during the French part. Its sad, especially since the author was French Canadian.

James

...The Jays are a US team.

They have always been owned by Canadians, first a brewing company(which sold the team when they were bought by a multinational beer conglomerate), then by a cable/communications company.

When they were successful, they were one of the first teams to heavily recruit from the Dominican Republic and that helped make them a winner. They also had Canadian farm teams. They won two World Series in a row, then the double whammy of the strike, and having to let some players go due to increasing salary demands. That really killed baseball in Toronto. In the winning seasons, almost every game was sold out (56,000 seats). Now they are lucky if they get half that for a good game.

But they are no more an american team than the Expos - the Expos were just an older club.

James

Don't know if there are ANY Canadian citizens on the Jays, even those from the Dominican Republic (that's all of them right?) are US citizens. They are paid in US dollars and play most of their games in the US against US teams in the American League.

US players, US money, US games against US teams, AMERICAN LEAGUE.

Yet TECHNICALLY they are Canadian, somehow.

EDITL:in all fairness though, they Do have ONE Canadian, Corey Koskie, who is STILL on the disabled list I think.

Just because the Dominicans are paid in US dollars does not in any way make them US citizens - they aren't. I'm not aware that the Expos had any more Canadian players, and proportionately more US players, so how does that make them more Canadian than the Jays.

You didnt live in Toronto during the heyday, we had massive support. The day they won the first world series, once the game was over everyone went out on the street to show their support and have some fun.

James

My brothers firm has/had a skybox, we were there for 2 games in 1993 and did enjoy the street party afterwards.

But other than the ownership, the players andmanagement are all/MAINLY Americans being paid in American dolars to play a game for the American league. THey live in the US most of the year, they spend their money in the US, they have US homes and families (though many have a second home here or move here during the season).

We can pretend they are Canadians and take credit for being a TORONTO based team, but that's about as far as it goes.

Check the wick out, the nationalities are all listed for this year's team.

Addundum: One of my closest friend shas been a promoter and P/R manager for many of the Jays, he handles their press conferences and meet & greets etc. and has done for many years. Even HE gets paid in USD as MOST of his work with them is either in the US or to the US. Most of THEIR bank accounts are also in the USA. Just ecause they play here and move here for the season, doesn't make them Canadians.

Find me three Canadians playing on Toronto, getting a dual citizenship because you're American League team is based in Canada does not mean they are a Canadian team.

Nancy Green and Steve Podborski were Canadian athletes, George Bell and Tony Fernandez were not.

Both American.

Once upon a time we could say the same about American teams playing hockey - they were stangers in a strange land but nobody thinks about that now.

US Dollars is a requirement of most players contracts, and with salary caps etc, it makes more sense to keep the whole team budget in one currency. Sure they hire Americans. Don't you think Canadian coaches dominate hockey in US and Europe?

I'm not wrapping the Blue Jays around the flag or anything. But I don't think it matters that much where the players come from. They are just as Canadian as the Expos were, or the Raptors are. Do you think the New York Rangers are a Canadian team because the coach is Canadian and over half the players are Canadian (and few are American, more Europeans than Americans).

James

People should burn our flag because we don't care about them? How about they care for themselves then. Plenty of these countries that are jelious (I mean HATE) of America, are real quick to put their hands out for funding and trade with the US.

Sure, there will always be things done by people at the top that you don't agree with and don't even always hear about, but that isn't represenative of the population. I really do believe that not every Muslim is a rabid dog that should be shot, even though the 911 terroists were Muslims. You don't judge the whole by the few you see.

And the sniveling about the Bush policies being the reason the world hates the US really does show the lack of credibility of the speakers. Bush had only been in office for a few months when 911 happened. And it wasn't the first time it got bombed. There were more attacks under Clinton, let alone Carter.

This is not a new thing. It is the same thing that politicians try to do all the time. Class warfare. Hate the people who have more than you.

And as a product of US education, I will bite, if the US coming into WWII isn't what turned the tide, then who was it? I know the Brits never backed down no matter how hard they got bombed (gutsy baastards!) I also know that it sure wasn't the "french revolution" that did it. The Russians carried a big part of the fight too.

If you know of a credible unbiased book on this I honestly would love to read it. Would also be interested in the Brit version of the "American Revolution" as well.

I know how history works. The winner writes there own version, and in less free countries it also happens.

If they didn't run to plaster this trash across every newspaper and TV across the world, there would be much less of this form of "protest".

How many people have burned a countries flag in the privacy of their homes? It is out where they are trying to sensasionalize (sp) their cause, and know that this will get peoples attention.

Ban them from the media and they lose most of their "power".

Well IF I lived in one of the states where teh majority (nearly all) of the team was Canadian, I would also say they are, for all intents and purposes, a Canadian team, as they are made up of Canadian players. You can't tell me this is new to you.

Therefore they are seen as Canada's team but they are really Americans.

When I played ball there was a team almost completely of Japanese ballplayers who came here because amateur ball parks here were better. They were part of a BC league and therefore technically a Canadian team, but everyone considered them the Japanese team.

Because most of us in the US don't see the physical reminders of war and are taught that US involvement in WWII turned the tide of the war, we tend to believe that we saved the world and are deserving of the world's appreciation. We just kind of assume that the physical scars of war disappeared as soon as the war ended (or at least after the Marshall Plan).

I don't think it's a malicious self-interest that most Americans have. It's more of an out of sight, out of mind situation.

And a huge portion of the US population is 2nd or 3rd generation and have been taught by our parents and grandparents (people who were able to build good lives in a new land) that the US is the greatest country in the world. Even a left-leaning, UN-supporting, knee-jerk, liberal like myself belives this.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" - Samuel Johnson

Hitler never planned an invasion of Britain when the battle of France began. He thought that Britain would sign an armistice once France fell. Germany did not have the experience in mounting an amphibious operation. At the time when France fell, Germany's war planners were already planning the invasion of Russia.

When Britain failed to capitulate, Hitler did order invasion planning to begin. But it wasn't a very good plan. Because of lack of preparation and timing, Hitler was going to use river barges towed by fishing boats. They would be travelling at about 3 miles an hour and at the channels narrowest points it would be a 7 hour journey. Without both complete air and sea superiority, it would have been a slaughter. Germany did have enough paratroops to cause trouble, but could not land a substantial force without first wiping our both the RAF and the Royal Navy. Don't forget that the successful landings at Normandy were succssful because of the lessons learned at Dieppe, Anzio, Guadacanal and North Africa.

If the US had stayed out of the war, Russia would have eventually conquered Germany but it would have been a pyrric victory. I have no doubt western europe would be Russias for the taking, but they would have been so exhausted I doubt that they would have been able to keep it.

James

Two big things. The Scientists lieing to Hitler about the status of the buzzbomb and other projects.

Also when Hitler stopped listening to Romell and the others and started deciding what and where the armies would be doing really stretched them too thin.

Now are you going to tell me that if America had not entered the war at all, it still would have been won in another two years anyways? Remember this wasn't JUST Germany that had to get beaten down and now it is you who is minimizing what was done.

Also it was my understanding that it was the still prosperous US that GREATLY helped fund the rebuilding of Europe? But yes, it was NOT our homeland that was destroyed (except Pearl Harbor).

Free Enterprise and the like. Instead of passing laws preventing things like burning the National Flag they should be passing laws to actually burn several a day to keep the flag makers in business.

It doesn't matter that all the flags that get burnt are made in a different country where labor is cheap just burn the things and keep the makers in business and increase their profits.

If you push the manufactures hard enough they might even make one that burns easily and doesn't require some form of fuel being used and to keep things all PC they would have to be made out of non-polluting materials so that the smog of all the flags burnt per day builds up polluting the place. You could have a whole new industry "Flags to Burn" and because they are for a special purpose the makers could charge a premium price for the things as well.

Government should be encouraging business not preventing it from even starting I wonder when they will want to get involved in the really important things instead of the stupid vote pulling junk that this is all about. If I remember correctly back in the 60 & 70 there where people burning their Draft Cards and there was talk then about outlawing this action as well and look how that mess turned out.

What may seem important today will in several years time be nothing more than a bad joke that will continue to haunt you for a very long time to come. If the biggest problem that you have is some disgruntled person burning a Flag then you really don't have a problem ask anyone would they have preferred Tim McVey to burn a flag or blow up that building I'm guessing that most would say burn the Bloody flag after all other then the person involved in burning the bloody thing who gets hurt? If you are really lucky they will kill themselves from inhaling the toxic smoke from the thing as it burns so what? Some may get what they deserve and others will believe that it is their right to burn flags if they want to, personally I see it as Hypocritical passing laws to prevent personal expression when at the same time the Government is passing even more restrictive Laws curtailing personal freedoms and allowing the important things like the Economy go to Hell in a Hand basket with a care in the world.

If it was my Government I would be very vocal to have them all dismissed and an Administrator appointed to run the place properly so that there was a living wage Health Care available to all Medications that are affordable and work for everyone who wants to work and limit the payments to heads of Companies and the Higher Bureaucrats who are well and truly overpaid to begin with. I would also be limiting any possible "Golden Handshakes" being allowed to Upper Management when they resign as well as what these people receive is nothing short of obscene when you look at the rest of the place.

Col ]:)

And currently what is being done about it? Back in the days of the British Empire they did at least rule the countries that they controlled for their benefit even if they did tax the hell out of them but the adverage living standard was better under British Rule.

When the weight of world opinion forced them out they did try to establish stable Governments but these all failed and look at what it has become a constant Basket Case with at present no solution available so it is just put in the "Too Hard" basket and forgotten about.

Col ]:)

The media doesn't appeal to the masses because of the unbiased news coverage it is because they appeal and write stories for the lowest common dominator and the lower the better as it gives them more in the way of ratings and whatever else their success's measured by.

Don't believe me just look at Fox to see what I'm saying is right or the National Enquirer they are all junk media that really should be outlawed as it is these places that is doing your country far more harm that you even begin to realize.

Sorry I didn't fit in any anti Bush story but as I really don't give a dam either way about the bloke I can't be bothered. Provided he doesn't come and take a crap in my back yard I really don't care. :p

Col ]:)

I did miss Dieppe, however I have not forgotten the slaughter that they faced by boldly crossing right into the face of Germany's embattlements at Dieppe.

The old film footage of that day makes D-Day seem like a walk in the park in comparisson. Those Canadian soldiers were sent into hell when they faced Dieppe. They had been in and around England supporting the ar effort and had all been wanting to get more involved in the war, thus they were rallied for Dieppe.

Without Dieppe, I think D-Day would have been a mass slaughter instead though, D-Day plans were rerouted to beaches further south and not straight across the channel as Germany had expected, that helped D-Days success a GREAt deal.

It's odd really, there have been several wars since, though nothing similar in scale and numbers, yet these battles don't interest me or really phase me at all, as they were pretty much fire and forget battles for the most part and warfare has become less personal. With the exception of Vietnam that HAD to be fought hanf to hand due to the territory. Yet Vietnam had no rhyme or reason, it was a different scenario.

But the first two world wars were such a battle of people vs people, one on one and they did it.

I even have to respect Germany's soldiers, not HItler or the SS but the Nazi regime that was simly a bunch of men fighting for what they believed was the right cause, WHEN they had a choice, other than that it was a global call to the homeland.

It just fascinates me what they did to get through , th eimmense numbers of battles they fought and survived just to do it again the next day with little relief or even little support in many cases.

I might suggest you are minimizing the Soviet war effort. The Soviets won several major campaigns against the cream of the German army before the Italian campaigm. The largest tank battle ever was fought in Russia (Kursk) and destroyed Hitlers ability to threaten Moscow forever. The Soviets won these battles the hard way, and their losses were high. Most of the German army's elite units were in the east, not the west.

Furthemore, the Russians outproduced the Germans in all factors, troops, tanks, airplanes. It was inevitable that Russia would win out in the end, alone or with the west.

The Americans carried the ball in the pacific, no question. They carried over half the weight in Europe. American manufacturing helped countries like Canada and Britain field more troops. (And proportionately Canada had more men in uniform per capita than the US, and only a handful were draftees)

Yes the Marshall plan is what created modern Europe. And yes the Americans created it and funded it. Not denying that at all. Britain was massively in debt from the war. The alternative, doing nothing, would have played right into the soviet's plan. Don't forget who Marshall was - a soldier, not a professional politician or bureaucrat, although he obviously was skilled politically.

James

Actually I never implied it would have been won without the US, I credit the allied forces, which the US was part of, right? But I don't credit the US with winning WWII and saving Europe.

Funding doesn't replace a lost city, it assists in pickning yourself up again. Much as all the countries that have since come together to help rebuild after 9/11 and the European and Canadian allies that took your side once again in Afghanistan. They haven't forgotten the need for, the importance of and the power of our unified allied nations, unlike Bush seems to have done with Iraq.

As for Germany being spread too thin, this is true. It's not really what lost againt Russia though. Germans wer tired, poorly equipped and clothed for a winter battle, Russia had that advantage. Hitlers henchmen actually protested Hitlers plan to pull out troops from surrounding areas and amalgamate them to take a shot at Stalingrad. Hitler was going more than a little mad at that time with a severe case of syphillis.
He had a personal bone to pick with Joseph Stalin and decided to go straight for the lions den, taking Staligraad would be the big poke in the eye for Russia, it was a carrot dangling in front of him.

It was HITLERS converging of the troops into a single fighting force focused on Stalingraad that ended his success against Russia, staying thin would have been to his benefit at that point in time.

They left flanks open and made it easy for Russia to completely surround them and dig right in. Russians were better prepared fr a winter war and they just stood it out, Germany was in the middle of them and couldn't rearm, reclothe and
feed it's troops, they had literally cut themselves off by amalgamating surrounding forces into a full scale attack on Stalingrad. They had no way out and the remaining force was quickly being driven back east across Europe by the allies.

There was 4 years of planning pre D-Day, Dieppe was a dry run gone bad. It DID confirm Hitler that the allied planned to attach across the channel though and from the North of the D-Day beaches.

The US built the immense numbers of landing craft in sercretism in the US, when one was photographed and sent back to Hitler, he laughed thinking that such a big square boat would not be an invasion landing craft, his mistake!

One of the key elements of surprise behind D-Day though was attacking at low tide.

Hitler had assumed there would be a high tide invasion so as to land farther up the beach.

Those steel Jack-like structures (name slips me now)all over the beach were actually put in place to tear the hulls of the heavily loaded landing craft. The allied idea, was to use the new rocket technology to drop rockets all over the beach and create huge pits where troops could gain cover. Unfortunately for the men on Omaha, the rockets were fired into teh water a half mils off the beach, so the men hit shore without cover, a truly horrifying experience if you can imagine how you would feel going in and your expected cover is NOT there! Just beach and sand and gun placements taking you out like sitting ducks.

The tanks, even the carpet rollers, were given launch orders prematurely and all but one sank to the bottom. Between the missed rockets and the absense of heavy tanks to clear the beach and take out the gun placements, I cannot even fathom what gave some men the ability to even force their legs to move up that beach.

Blah blah sorry...I can talk about the various battles of WWII all day, as you can tell, sorry bout that!
:)

Withdrawl accepted and noted.

People do NOT see America as a more prosperous country at all, I have never met someone with that opinion, other than Americans who feel that's what others think.
People see Americans as over arrogant end of story, not successful.

A poor winner is FAR worse than a poor loser.

As for the problems around the world, the USA is as much to blame in most cases as ANY country on earth has been.

Britain has always been accused of all of these atrocities in other countries, yet Braitain also had this HUGE global commonwealth to deal with. These British colonies were often controlled by such small forces and pretty much left to their own devices until there were major problems.

Britiain also provided the ability for these countries to become global partners form third world repressions with no technology or trade expectations. Britain has protected them too.

As for Middle East, well the US has had their hand in that one as long as it has benfitted them too, right to the point of invasion for regime change that is in the US's best interests.

But your views on why people dislike the US attitude, it is pretty arrogant itself and not too far off people implying others are jealous of America, which I have also yet to see. ANYONE can move to America why would they be jealous? They'd just move there.

I don't know ANYONE that has ever thought about moving stateside and I don't know anyone that ever would. I've run offices there, I've spent a lot of time working in the US, but it has never even crossed my mind to move there. Well to be honest I DID considerit in eh early 90's mainly for monetary purposes but it was just a flighty thought I had.

Nobody's jealous, nobody resents you for success in fact most Do like the US but not the US 'holier than thou' attitude and that will put off more people than opportunity turns on.

People who have never lived under your form of government would never consider doing so. It's not a different country, it's practically a different world for most, and one they don't see as appealing at all.

What works for you and makes you proud is all finse and dandy, just don't assume that's what everyone else wants though, because they REALLY don't.

Like I've said in the past when we talked about this topic on here...

I well know that a large part of the world view us as arrogant. But that by itself isn't what aggravates me.

No what aggravates me is hearing people from other countries saying this stuff to me like its my *personal* fault, or I *personally* support that viewpoint.

Look we all live where we live, we don't start out choosing where we grow up its where our parents happen to be at that time. We don't chose our nationality, again our parents have to do with that.

I'm just an American citizen because this is where "life" made me be born in and where I grew up. I'm not a politican, I'm a regular guy just trying to pay the bills and have a decent life.

So when folks say well "you're american of course you are arrogant"...or the like....that makes my opinion of THAT person go "oh and you are pretty messed up yourself to just say that to me when I did nothing but say "hi"...." lol.

And of course my education is skewed on the American slant....anyone who think other countries or cultures don't skew their education to their benefit are generations beyond naive.

The other thing that will get me going in these debates is when people just accuse America at fault for seemingly everything, yet they "weaken" or want to "lessen" the good throughout history that America served. But yet Americans are the only ones with an "attitude" problem right? LOL That just cracks me up to no end!

There is crap about every country, there is ugliness about ALL our coutnries...so if someone wants to just blame America on everything and never say anything good about it -- DUH!!! Of course I'm going to think YOU (ie. that person) are the arrogant one, then if enough people act the same way and are from the same country, of course over time in the back of my mind I'll be thinking "Man and that country calls *us* arrogant?"

Btw, No the US wasn't the savior of the world in WWII, but it played a HUGE role towards that goal. This is fact.

Is that you equate buring a flag to cutting someon's head off. Now THAT'S patriotism gone too far.

The two aren't even remotely comparabe in ANY way whatsoever.

The KKK burning crosses, it's not the cross burning that's the problem, it is the racist movement that should be stifled and yes they should have the freedom of speech removed if they are talking about eliminating an entire race that have helped build much of America's prosperity to begin with. Hitler tried that, didn't work did it?

A flag is an inanimate object used to symbolize what a nation stands for. Flag burners are not saying they want to eliminate the American race, it is a way of showing ditaste for a government that makes that flag important. It is a way of saying America has failed them.

Not that ALL Americans should die.

AS with the KKK and beheadings in Iraq. These are direct threats on indivudual lives, nobody is doing thta when protsting by burning a flag, it is a way to show your dienfranchisement with a nations political system.

There is posts about who contributed what to the winning of the war and some excited responses of each person defending their country...

But for real -- during the actual war the Brits and the American forces worked incredibly well together and many friendships were actually formed. They didn't slam each others country there was profound respect on each side, and each side knew the other was integral to the overall success.

At least that how it was in my grand father's unit and my other grand father's friend's unit (who was one of the real life "Band of Brothers" so to speak).

My grand father used to say that "those brits were crazy sons of b*tches, they'd charge right in"...lol

Keep in mind my grandfather was no slouch either so that's saying something..lol.

I think the government should be focusing on more important issues then flag burning. Flag burning is ones freedom of speech. I do not fully understand the why's behind it but people do have the right to protest. I completly disaggree with flag burning as I feel it is disrespectful.

What really gets me is that the government is spending time on this. Isn't there more pressing issues out there? I have to question the motive behind this. Are the politicans trying to jump on another bandwagon making it sound like they really care? This will get us votes from the flag waving people. And hide other issues that are prevelant.

I am proud of what the American flag stood for and could never burn it myself.

then it was due to my poor comunication skills at that time.

Just because they come after each other, it was never stated or MEANT to imply that were on the same level. Just listing many things that DO show up in the media that SHOULDN'T!.

Now that you understand my INTENTION, care to start over?

I did give credit where credit was due, and then ASKED for the global perpective of the event.

My comment of [i]"if the US coming into WWII isn't what turned the tide, then who was it? I know the Brits never backed down no matter how hard they got bombed (gutsy baastards!) I also know that it sure wasn't the "french revolution" that did it. The Russians carried a big part of the fight too."[/i] did not minimize the efforts of other Countries, though not knowing much of the Canadian efforts I didn't mention them. Figured I would be informed.

The only comment I has was when swipes were made to minimise the contribution the US made during and after the war to the world. We did our fair share WITH the allies, not FOR the allies.