NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes or no or please explain in circumstances.

Yes, but personally, I have better things to do with my money then by a flag just so I can burn it.

Yes.....because the right to dissent and express that dissent is sacrosanct.

Yes they should, if people thinking there going to get set alight at protests they won't go. No large protests

Why not?

They should be allowed. If you think about it, the flag of a country is just a symbol for the state, not necessarily the people. Many people choose to let that flag be a symbol for them, but it shouldn't be mandatory for them to do so. I agree with Biff.

Should people be allowed to burn the US Constitution or the Declaration of Independence?

Sure. Makes it easier to pick the disrespectful bastards out of the crowd later when your gang beats 'em up.

That, and what Biff said.

yes its from a movie, but i think it fits here.

"You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the land of the free."

~ The American President

If you think that US Protestors should be able to burn the flags, answer this question: Should people be allowed to burn the US Constitution or the Declaration of Independence?

If you think that US Protestors should NOT be able to burn the flag, answer this question:
Should US protestors be able to burn replications of the United States flag?

yes its from a movie, but i think it fits here.

"You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the land of the free."

~ The American President

Now he would be a good President! ;)

Should people be allowed to burn the US Constitution or the Declaration of Independence?
Not the originals, please. They have historical significance.

Copies? Why not. It's just paper. The value is in the words, not the image of the words.

Should people be allowed to burn the US Constitution or the Declaration of Independence?

The originals, or copies?

Originals, no, that would be destruction of government property. Copies, fine by me.

Not the originals, please. They have historical signifigance Copies? Why not.
(Don't think you know my stance, I'm playing double devil's advocate)
What's so important about the constitution and the declaration of indepence that they can't be burnt? Sure, the words on them have historical significance, but not the actual paper. We could even take picture of them so we know exactly what the hand writing looked like...then go burn them.

Should people be allowed to burn the US Constitution or the Declaration of Independence?
Yes, why not?

You quoted before I finished editing almost the same thing.

As for historical significance ...

Why not burn the redwoods? We have pictures. No, I want to see John Hancock's signature in the actual ink he used. Double devil's advocate nonwithstanding.

What's so important about the constitution and the declaration of indepence that they can't be burnt?
Simple answer: they belong to all Americans. Just like the National Parks or any other tangible asset. Protestors don't have the right to take that away from us.

If they go to the Archives and buy lovely parchment copies or nice flags and burn them, it's their money, their loss. I'm not injured by their disrespect.

You quoted before I finished editing almost the same thing.

As for historical significance ...

Why not burn the redwoods? We have pictures. No, I want to see John Hancock's signature in the actual ink he used. Double devil's advocate nonwithstanding.
Here is the difference between the redwoods and the US Constitution. The redwoods are a natural wonder and part of nature. We'd destroy more than just true natural beauty if we burnt them down. We'd destroy a huge animal habitat. As far as the US Constitution is concerned, beyond the actual words, which can be found easily without going and looking at the actual constitution, anything significant about the actual physical document is purely symbolic.

It's not a matter of "should they" because they already are allowed to, by law.

That said, to answer Opal's question, YES people should be able to burn representations of the Constitution and Declaration. Not the actual, original documents, though, as those are public property and there are laws against destruction of public property.

If you go buy a flag, it's your choice to do with it as you will. It's your own private property.

Also, we are a nation of ideas and ideals, not of symbols. Burning a flag does nobody any harm.

Burning a flag does nobody any harm.
And how does burning a 200+ year old document harm anyone?

why shouldn't anyone be allowed to burn a flag?
it it's a flag that you purchased or received as a gift or whatnot, you're destroying your own property. so really, as long as you're not being dangerous about it, why not?

----"It's not a matter of "should they" because they already are allowed to, by law.That said, to answer Opal's question, YES people should be able to burn representations of the Constitution and Declaration. Not the actual, original documents, though, as those are public property and there are laws against destruction of public property.If you go buy a flag, it's your choice to do with it as you will. It's your own private property.Also, we are a nation of ideas and ideals, not of symbols. Burning a flag does nobody any harm. "

I was asking in an opinion on the matter. Not any facts included, just what do you think? Just like someone asks should people be allowed to buy assualt weapons... it is legal yet we have a law (that expires in less than a month)that says you can not if it was manufactured after a certain year or meets 2 or more of certain characteristics, but still there will be some that say you 'should' not be able to buy the older versions as well (that is an opinion). With that said I do not feel you should burn the flag, however I understand that I should not have a right to tell you what you need to do with your own property also. (assuming you bought it and not stole it) Therefor when I say 'should' I am only saying what I would do in my personal opinion.

And how does burning a 200+ year old document harm anyone?

Why don't you burn the deed to your house?

And how does burning a 200+ year old document harm anyone?

The documents in question belong to the 300 million people of the United States collectively. I have no right to burn your property. Destruction of your property does you harm, though not in the physical sense.

I am one of the few people who answered No, because while I would generally vote Yes on this type of thing, I know by experience that you will alienate more people from your cause than you gain by doing this

You quoted before I finished editing almost the same thing.

As for historical significance ...

Why not burn the redwoods? We have pictures. No, I want to see John Hancock's signature in the actual ink he used. Double devil's advocate nonwithstanding.

If you have pictures of the redwoods, then burn the pictures. Burning the original is obviously foolish. We are talking about burning the COPIES. So you don't have to worry about the real ones being burned and replaced by copies.

We are talking about representations of the original. Although whether we burn a real or paper flag doesn't matter, its not like there is a limited supply. We'll just have more made in China. Unlike the ever-so-rare constitution.

Why don't you burn the deed to your house?
1) That's not a very good correlation.
2) I don't own a home.
3) If I had a legal copy of the deed to the home that I don't own, and burning that deed would serve some purpose, I would burn it. However, I don't have a deed, and I don't have a legal copy of it, and burning it would serve no purpose.

If you have pictures of the redwoods, then burn the pictures. Burning the original is obviously foolish. We are talking about burning the COPIES. So you don't have to worry about the real ones being burned and replaced by copies.

We are talking about representations of the original. Although whether we burn a real or paper flag doesn't matter, its not like there is a limited supply. We'll just have more made in China. Unlike the ever-so-rare constitution.
There is nothing significant about the constitution except the words which we have verified copies off. Any significance beyond that is purely symbolic. The anti-flag-burners are arguing that flag-burners are burning the symbol of what American soldiers have given there life for since 1776.

Incidently, I have one of those huge flags they put on coffins at Veterans' funerals that my great-aunt gave me. It was used on my great-uncle's coffin - a Veteran of two wars - and I use it as a blanket sometimes. It's surprisingly warm and comfortable.

I wouldn't burn it because it's useful.

No no no. The Flag represents more than just America, it represents the men and women who haved died for it, it represents freedom, it is more than just a piece of cloth.

Should US Protestors be allowed to burn the bodies of dead American Soldiers? (Not cremate, but burn, char is so all that is left is a charred black corpse that is barely recognizable as a humen body.)

Should Jews be allowed to burn Crosses on the yards of Christians?

Should Muslims be allowed to destroy Jewish Synagogues?

Should Christians be allowed to destroy Buddhist monasteries?

The people who burned the flags are not the one's who faught and died for it, they are the one's who hate all that America stands for, and yes, when I say they I am referring to hippies.

And some people burn the flag just to get attention, like burning an American Flag at an anti-fur protest, wtf? how is that going to help their cause? It is like one person said in an interview about an anti-Bush protest, most the people there had no idea what they were protesting, they just showed up to get attention.

Should Jews be allowed to burn Crosses on the yards of Christians?

Should Muslims be allowed to destroy Jewish Synagogues?

Should Christians be allowed to destroy Buddhist monasteries?
Those all violate other people's rights.

As far as the US Constitution is concerned, beyond the actual words, which can be found easily without going and looking at the actual constitution, anything significant about the actual physical document is purely symbolic.

Hey, you figured it out.

The Flag is Symbolic of what America stands for.
The Constitution and Declaration of Independence are symbolic of what the US stands for.
The Redwood trees are a thing of natural beauty, there are many thousands of them, there is only one original Constitution of the United States of America, one Declaration of Independence, these are much more than pieces of paper, just like the Bald Eagle is more than just a bird, like the President of the United States of America is more than just one man.

In every country in the world the American flag is easily recognized, when someone sees it they know what it is, not many other nations can claim that, China, maybe, the UK, most likely, there is a good chance most people recognize the Russian flag, if not then the flag of the Soviet Union should still be easily recognized.

No no no. The Flag represents more than just America, it represents the men and women who haved died for it, it represents freedom, it is more than just a piece of cloth.

We are a nation of ideas, not a nation of symbols. Please try to remember that. Nowhere in the Oath of Service does it state that military members serve to protect the flag.

Should US Protestors be allowed to burn the bodies of dead American Soldiers?

That's not the same thing. There are laws concerning the proper disposal of human remains.

Should Jews be allowed to burn Crosses on the yards of Christians?

Not the same thing ... that is a violation of private property.

Should Muslims be allowed to destroy Jewish Synagogues?

Not the same thing ... that is destruction of public property.

Should Christians be allowed to destroy Buddhist monasteries?

Again ... not the same thing.

The people who burned the flags are not the one's who faught and died for it, they are the one's who hate all that America stands for, and yes, when I say they I am referring to hippies.

Okie ... ummm ... if you died for your country, you aren't around to protest it. However, that's nit-picking, very sophist, so I'll let it go. NOBODY fought for a flag. NOBODY. I take it you were never in the military. I forgive you for you know not what you do.

And some people burn the flag just to get attention, like burning an American Flag at an anti-fur protest, wtf? how is that going to help their cause? It is like one person said in an interview about an anti-Bush protest, most the people there had no idea what they were protesting, they just showed up to get attention.

Hard to protest anything if you don't draw attention to your protest. The right to protest is one of our most fundamental freedoms. Do you think we should all just go along with whomever is in office and be at their whim?

Did you believe the same thing when Clinton was in office? After all, he was President ... did you think people should just respect him and stay quiet?

Those all violate other people's rights.

No more than buring an American Flag.

No more than buring an American Flag.

What right of anyone's is violated when a person burns a flag? Name one and cite your source for that right, be it inalienable or designated by decree (ie. the Constitution).

If you can name just one violated right if I burn my privately owned property, then I will concede the whole argument to you.

People do not fight for the flag, they fight for what it represents.

Burning the Flag is a violation of National Property. (opinion)

You are right, I was not in the military, I AM in the Army.

Gotta go, I will respond in about 4 hours.

A protester burning the flag isn't him burning what America once stood for (i.e Liberty, freedom ect) but for what he believes it has turned into, a perversion of all those things.

'Whatever happened to protesting nothing in particular, just because it's Saturday, and there's nothing else to do...'

People have the right to burn copies, of course. Originals are public property, so it's the same as to why you are not allowed to burn down a park, or a national forest, or destroy highways for fun...

And it's not always good to stand behind a cause like the Govn't or the president just..because. Besides, if you really stood for that, then if Kerry was elected or everyone in the government system was one religion or something then you would still stand behind them instead, just because you stand behind your country..it's your duty as an American (if you are one) to stand up for what you believe in and to overthrow the government if it gets too radical (either way). You don't stand behind something just because it's there, you stand behind Bush because you like oppressing people and stuff or you support the Declaration of Independence because you believe in what it says physically and symbolically. Burning a flag is a way of protest to stand behind what you believe. It's just like getting signatures or holding a protest, only there are many more things you can protest with burning a flag.

There is nothing significant about the constitution except the words which we have verified copies off. Any significance beyond that is purely symbolic. The anti-flag-burners are arguing that flag-burners are burning the symbol of what American soldiers have given there life for since 1776.

It's impossible to discuss with you in your devil's advocate role.

You've said in several posts that the actual Constitution and Declaration of Independance are nothing more than "purely symbolic". But that is just an opinion. There is an actual historic significance to both of those documents that goes beyond symbolism. Destruction of either of those would result in the loss of something that could never be replaced.

Copies would be symbols, sure, go ahead and burn them or burn copies of the flag.

I am one of the few people who answered No, because while I would generally vote Yes on this type of thing, I know by experience that you will alienate more people from your cause than you gain by doing this

Protesting by its nature alienates people.

Protesting means that someone on the bottom wrung doesn't like what the top wrung is doing and is trying to install change.

When the elite don't like that you're opposed to them, they convince their supporters (not a hard job) that protesters are evil sub-human traitors. With that justification behind them its easy to subjugate the protestors or at least question or remove their RIGHT to burn whatever property they own in protest. This takes the rights away from the protestors as well as the unwitting people who supported the elite.

It's a very undemocratic action to take away people's right to protest in this devious form. They just have to demonize amongst their supporters an image of what the protest is about and with the right support they can make democratic protest fundamentally outlawed.

You're only hope is a progressive, friendly goverment.

People do not fight for the flag, they fight for what it represents.

Hence, they fight for the ideals of the country. Burning anything that represents it does not burn the ideals, it burns a mere object.

If I were to burn a picture of you, would you die? No, of course not.

Burning the Flag is a violation of National Property. (opinion)

Interesting opinion, but completely untrue. If I go to the flag store and buy a flag, it is not national property. It is my property.

You are right, I was not in the military, I AM in the Army.

Then you should have paid more attention to your Oath. You've clearly missed the point of your service.

Before you mention it, I am a Veteran. US Army Rangers, 2nd BN, Bravo Company, Desert Storm. I have no issue with people burning flags. What's your problem?

It's impossible to discuss with you in your devil's advocate role.

You've said in several posts that the actual Constitution and Declaration of Independance are nothing more than "purely symbolic". But that is just an opinion. There is an actual historic significance to both of those documents that goes beyond symbolism. Destruction of either of those would result in the loss of something that could never be replaced.

Copies would be symbols, sure, go ahead and burn them or burn copies of the flag.
No. I said the actual physical document is purely symbolic. The actual words and the emotions and spirit attached to those words (and they're attached to the words, not the paper) are not symbolic. They actually do have significance.

Hey, you figured it out.

The Flag is Symbolic of what America stands for.
The Constitution and Declaration of Independence are symbolic of what the US stands for.
The Redwood trees are a thing of natural beauty, there are many thousands of them, there is only one original Constitution of the United States of America, one Declaration of Independence, these are much more than pieces of paper, just like the Bald Eagle is more than just a bird, like the President of the United States of America is more than just one man.

In every country in the world the American flag is easily recognized, when someone sees it they know what it is, not many other nations can claim that, China, maybe, the UK, most likely, there is a good chance most people recognize the Russian flag, if not then the flag of the Soviet Union should still be easily recognized.

Yeah they need to recognize the american flag to make sure they're burning the right one.

Its easy to see america is still in a state of revolution and that the war of independance never realy ended just by looking at how strong a hold useless patriotic imagery still holds on some people.

Yes the president is a man. Its the job of a democracy to remind him of that every day by not taking him very seriously and poking his policies with satirical jabs as often as possible.

If you want a leader that demands God-like respect, tells everyone to never question their policies and punishes those who do then install a brutal King, Dictator, Pharaoh or emperor or at least move to China or North Korea.

I am one of the few people who answered No, because while I would generally vote Yes on this type of thing, I know by experience that you will alienate more people from your cause than you gain by doing this
I agree with you. When I voted Yes I wasn't trying to say that burning the US flag was a good idea, or that I would do it. I was just saying that people should be allowed to burn the flag. If they alienate people, well then they lose out.

I hear a lot of right wingers accuse "hippies" (a very general term) of hating America and what it stands for. What they usually mean by this is that protestors are not supporting the troops, or more specifically not supporting the current administration's policy. Perhaps West Pacific is referring only to anarchists (who could be accused of hating America's values, as they are against organized government altogether). But I think most of those who burn the flag would say that they to so because it has been shamed by others - that is, by those who attach it to a political agenda or policy, and those on the right that seem to believe that waving the flag makes them more American.

the one's who hate all that America stands for, and yes, when I say they I am referring to hippies.
America stands for liberty and freedom. Do hippies hate liberty and freedom? I don't think so.

I don't see why not, I question the motives however...

-----"I hear a lot of right wingers accuse "hippies" (a very general term) of hating America and what it stands for. What they usually mean by this is that protestors are not supporting the troops, or more specifically not supporting the current administration's policy. Perhaps West Pacific is referring only to anarchists (who could be accused of hating America's values, as they are against organized government altogether). But I think most of those who burn the flag would say that they to so because it has been shamed by others - that is, by those who attach it to a political agenda or policy, and those on the right that seem to believe that waving the flag makes them more American."

One group decides to wave it one decides to burn it... why do we all fall for the idea that the flag must mean what that group is doing with it? It does not stand for what they think. It stands for what you think. That is why i do not respect the people that choose to burn the flag. However I respect thier right to do so. As I do not respect the people that exploit our flag in order to shield themselves for arguments sake, but I still respect thier right to do so.

I do have a question for those who think it's wrong to burn a flag because it represents people who fought and died for their country ...

Is it ok to burn other nations' flags?

There is nothing significant about the constitution except the words which we have verified copies off. Any significance beyond that is purely symbolic. The anti-flag-burners are arguing that flag-burners are burning the symbol of what American soldiers have given there life for since 1776.

Actually there are quite a few very old flags in various museums and I would suggest no one burn them since they are historic. Just as I say no one burn or otherwise destroy nazi memorabilia since its a part of history and we shouldn't forget the lessons history tells us.

In the future those artifacts may mean whole different things to america and they will need to remember where they've come from.

And an interesting note on flags concerning the creation of the present flag of Canada: the Maple Leaf. During the debate on what the new flag should look like that should replace the Red Ensign (an old british colony standard flag), veterans who fought in the world wars wanted the flag to stay the same since it was the Red Ensign they fought under. Long story short: the veterans lost and we got a flag that symbolized everyone in the country as one (what the leaf stands for) and that no longer showed any special devotion to the Brits (which pleased the french). So in the end the veterans were wrong.

I think its South Carolina (?) who is having a similar state flag issue. They should really change the flag to represent the people there and not anything specifically historical of even violent for that fact. The confederate flag must go.

Should people be allowed to burn the US Constitution or the Declaration of Independence?

The flag is just a symbol. Not something that is historically signifigant, IMO.

No. I said the actual physical document is purely symbolic. The actual words and the emotions and spirit attached to those words (and they're attached to the words, not the paper) are not symbolic. They actually do have significance.

Yes.

I acknowledged what you said about the physical document. I just disagreed with you. There is historical significance to the actual Constitution, and DoI.

While I support protestors rights to burn representations of either, or of the flag, I would not support their right to burn the flag flown over Fort Sumter, or the flag flown over the Alamo, or flown aboard the USS Arizona (if one could be found). These are historically significant items. Not symbolic.

So in the end the veterans were wrong.

Just an observation.... I would submit that the veterans were not wrong, just outvoted.

Another thing I'm wondering .... which flag?

It's changed 26 times, you know ...

I like the 1861 version myself ...

http://www.readingeagle.com/krt/holidays/flag1/assets/images/1861.jpg

The flag we have now was put in place in 1960. That means none of our "Greatest Generation" fought or died for our modern flag.

It's just a piece of cloth, folks. The flag changes, but the ideals stay the same.

Get it through your heads yet? Hope so.

A flag is a bit of cloth.

*sparks one up*

watch it burn

*lights a joint with the flag*

now i'm a flag burning hippy.

(the flag in question is the Union Jack)

The flag we have now was put in place in 1960. That means none of our "Greatest Generation" fought or died for our modern flag.
People still have died and fought for it however.

I acknowledged what you said about the physical document. I just disagreed with you. There is historical significance to the actual Constitution, and DoI.

While I support protestors rights to burn representations of either, or of the flag, I would not support their right to burn the flag flown over Fort Sumter, or the flag flown over the Alamo, or flown aboard the USS Arizona (if one could be found). These are historically significant items. Not symbolic.
This is the reason I play Devil's Advocate. People don't get away with just saying things and end up formulating better arguments. Your welcome.

You should be able to. Symbols should not be more important than what they stand for.

I think they should be allowed to burn the flag. Don't get me wrong, I would never burn the flag, because as a member of the US Navy, I salute that flag many times a day. The reason I think they should be allowed to burn the flag is because many men have died to give them that right. I don't think it's right to burn the flag, but I believe that they should be allowed to do it.

Yes, for several reasons. Most noteably, because people have died to give them that right-to take it away would be spitting on the graves of everyone who has ever served.

Should American Protestors be able to burn the Flag?


The question should be:

Should American Protestors be deported for burning the flag?

I hear Cuba is rather nice this time of year...... :D

You cant deport american citizens... unless you propose we deport them to Nebraska. ;)

However, if any of the said protestors are not legal US citizens or legal US residents, then yes, they should be deported.. but not for protesting, or burning flags, but for being here illegally

Hey, I've been to Nebraska. It seemed very nice.

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: how can you even think about burning the flag unless it touchs the ground yes you are supposed to burn it then why courtesy respect and honor.

how can you even think about burning the flag unless it touchs the ground yes you are supposed to burn it then why courtesy respect and honor.
your absolutely also suppost to forgot all forms of punctuation except at the end marks and right really long hardly comprehenedle meessages and axpect everyone to understand it completely and fully.

You cant deport american citizens... unless you propose we deport them to Nebraska. ;)

Nice. My father is from Nebraska.

However, if any of the said protestors are not legal US citizens or legal US residents, then yes, they should be deported.. but not for protesting, or burning flags, but for being here illegally


If these protestors don't like things in the US, let's give them a free ticket to a better country, Cuba/N.Korea/Iran/Libya....I'm sure these aforementioned countries are considerably more lenient on protestors/flag burners than the US is. :D

if your burning the flag for a good reason, then yeah burn the hell out of it.

I would never burn the flag, or another country's flag, but everyone should have the right to do it. Unless it was an original flag, like the one that was flying over Fort McHenry during the War of 1812. Then I would personally hunt them down and kill them. :sniper:

While I support protestors rights to burn representations of either, or of the flag, I would not support their right to burn the flag flown over Fort Sumter, or the flag flown over the Alamo, or flown aboard the USS Arizona (if one could be found). These are historically significant items.

The Texan flag flew over the Alamo. The flag from the Arizona was salvaged before the ship sank and brought to the USS Maryland, where a careless soldier burned it because it was covered in oil. You should have mentioned the World Trade Center flag, or the flag that soldier put over the head of the Saddam Hussein statue.

When a hippie burns a flag, that hippie has rejected America. By rejecting America, that hippie has rejected his own right to protest. 10 YEARS IN AN ALASKAN GULAG, THEN 10 YEARS IN A WYOMING LABOR CAMP!

Seriously, in some countries, that hippie would be gunned down instantly. Perhaps we could offer him a vacation to Uzbekistan to end his protest?

If these protestors don't like things in the US, let's give them a free ticket to a better country, Cuba/N.Korea/Iran/Libya....I'm sure these aforementioned countries are considerably more lenient on protestors/flag burners than the US is.

Actually, in three of the four countries you listed, it is illegal to burn that countries flag in political protest.

Shall we join such a "foward thinking" group of countries and ban burning our flag as well?

The Texan flag flew over the Alamo. The flag from the Arizona was salvaged before the ship sank and brought to the USS Maryland, where a careless soldier burned it because it was covered in oil. You should have mentioned the World Trade Center flag, or the flag that soldier put over the head of the Saddam Hussein statue.

When a hippie burns a flag, that hippie has rejected America. By rejecting America, that hippie has rejected his own right to protest. 10 YEARS IN AN ALASKAN GULAG, THEN 10 YEARS IN A WYOMING LABOR CAMP!

Seriously, in some countries, that hippie would be gunned down instantly. Perhaps we could offer him a vacation to Uzbekistan to end his protest?

My point about the flags (Alamo, Arizona etc.) was that individual items can come to have historical significance. (And there were several flags over the Arizona... during its commission, and afterwards at it's memorial)

I retired from the US Navy after 20 years. I've been asked this similar question many times. I spent those 20 years (metaphorically speaking) defending those "hippie's" rights to do just that.. protest what they feel unjust by burning the flag, or any other means of peaceful protest.

It saddens me, to be sure. I saluted the US flag thousands upon thousands of times, each time with the understanding of what I was doing, defending the flag, and what it stands for.

That being said, the right to protest is one of the most fundamental rights we have here in the US. In fact, it's even not so much as a right as a responsibility. It's all of our (Americans) duty to speak out against what we perceive as wrong, or injust, by any (peaceful) means necessary.

Do some carry it too far? Perhaps, but it is still their right none the less.

Just an observation.... I would submit that the veterans were not wrong, just outvoted.

Nah. The end result is what decided how wrong they were, not the fact that they were not able to keep it the old way.

Canadians were more unified under a flag that is representative of everyone. Now all people, including the veterans, are proud to have a flag that identifies them as a nation and not a colony.

Just like South Carolina (again...?) would be more unified if they had a flag that represented the people who live there instead of the fact it was a former slave state.

Actually, in three of the four countries you listed, it is illegal to burn that countries flag in political protest.

Shall we join such a "foward thinking" group of countries and ban burning our flag as well?

Im sure he was being sarcastic about those countries being more lenient.

Nah. The end result is what decided how wrong they were, not the fact that they were not able to keep it the old way.

Canadians were more unified under a flag that is representative of everyone. Now all people, including the veterans, are proud to have a flag that identifies them as a nation and not a colony.

But still.. it's not a matter of right or wrong. They, the veterans were not "wrong" for their opinion that the old version of the flag should have been kept. Just a different opinion. Symbols are what you make of them, and Im sure that the Canadian people are/were capable of independant identities regardless of the flag they choose to fly over their heads.

And how does burning a 200+ year old document harm anyone?
It does not harm...but still you cant burn them...
I cant burn the Deeds of your parents home...not until I buy it....

So if you could purchase those old documents...you could burn them...

Promblem is...they are not for sale...

But still.. it's not a matter of right or wrong. They, the veterans were not "wrong" for their opinion that the old version of the flag should have been kept. Just a different opinion. Symbols are what you make of them, and Im sure that the Canadian people are/were capable of independant identities regardless of the flag they choose to fly over their heads.

Its not like the vets at that time were being disingenuous which is not what I am implying when I say 'wrong'. In fact their emotions were understandable and honourable. They did a lot of good work under that flag and were only trying to pick what they thought was the right path. So they lobbied against any changes. "Why fix was wasn't broken" was probably their point of view.

However, for the sake of unity, fraternity AND identity the Red Ensign had to go. We were no longer a british colony and we had to identify ourselves as a nation (which is something Canadians had been struggling to do for decades. Even my parents were taught AMERICAN history, not canadian.). So in this sense they were misguided in their opinion.

Its not the simple cosmetic change of a flag's design as you are suggesting and it was down to a matter of opinion. It had deep philosophical meaning about how Canada's future was going to be like. It did not mean everyone had to think one way. It meant everyone could think THEIR way, whatever they decided it to be since Canadians (like all countries) have their own concerns.

If we look at it another way, the veteran's opinion would be like saying: "I am now 18 and have finally matured and become a man...but...I think I'll live with mom until I'm 50."

Once you mature, leave the nest and become your own man.

We must not live in a past, however honourable it may be, but instead look towards a promising future as a united people. (that sounds like politician's quote)

Their opinion, as honourable as it was, would keep us in the past and unable to forge a future as a nation if we could not forge an identity that was unique for the people that lived there, warts and all.

And even after the change the vets accepted it and grew to like their new identity. So it all worked out. :cool:

No - It's just morrally unjustifiable.

Yes.....because the right to dissent and express that dissent is sacrosanct.

What if dissension is expressed by killing innocent civilians? Is it sacrosanct then?

What if dissension is expressed by killing innocent civilians? Is it sacrosanct then?Cannot be expressed in Criminal ways....

BTW...get a brain :D

I voted yes, because people should be able to protest however they want as long as they don't harm anyone.

No - It's just morrally unjustifiable.

Protesters burn the flag to protest things the government does that are 'morally unjustifiable'.

Its just a very eye-catching way of saying "If you don't believe in the ideals this nation was born under than you might as well burn the flag and all she stands for".

They certainly don't hate the country, just the policies of those in charge.

However, with the anti-flag-burning rhetoric growing in the US it seems the neo-cons are just using that as an excuse to ignore the concerns of citizens who are not exactly followers of the GOP platform.

Not just flag-burning, but the whole philosophy behind protesting is being challenged by the whole flag-burning debate and may one day be outlawed altogether as being 'unpatriotic' or even 'treasonous'.

No - It's just morrally unjustifiable.

Please, what is unjustifiable? The burning of the flag? or some other post further up the thread?

The burning of a flag is completely morally justifiable. The flag stands for the freedom to do just that. It is every person's right to protest what they feel is wrong. As someone else earlier said, the ideas behind a symbol must be more important than the symbol itself.

Protesters burn the flag to protest things the government does that are 'morally unjustifiable'.

Its just a very eye-catching way of saying "If you don't believe in the ideals this nation was born under than you might as well burn the flag and all she stands for".

They certainly don't hate the country, just the policies of those in charge.

However, with the anti-flag-burning rhetoric growing in the US it seems the neo-cons are just using that as an excuse to ignore the concerns of citizens who are not exactly followers of the GOP platform.

Not just flag-burning, but the whole philosophy behind protesting is being challenged by the whole flag-burning debate and may one day be outlawed altogether as being 'unpatriotic' or even 'treasonous'.

Wow, talk about leap of logic. I completely understand someone being against flag burning. It's viewed as if it's an attack on their whole way of life.

That being said, I and many many other "neo-cons" will defend to the death someone's right to protest, right to speak out against what I hold dear. I dont feel the protestors in NYC are any more treasonous or unpatriotic than the delegates themselves.

Why must you insult conservatives, and say they are against protests "altogether" simply because we do not believe the same things you do?

The Texan flag flew over the Alamo. The flag from the Arizona was salvaged before the ship sank and brought to the USS Maryland, where a careless soldier burned it because it was covered in oil. You should have mentioned the World Trade Center flag, or the flag that soldier put over the head of the Saddam Hussein statue.

When a hippie burns a flag, that hippie has rejected America. By rejecting America, that hippie has rejected his own right to protest. 10 YEARS IN AN ALASKAN GULAG, THEN 10 YEARS IN A WYOMING LABOR CAMP!

Seriously, in some countries, that hippie would be gunned down instantly. Perhaps we could offer him a vacation to Uzbekistan to end his protest?

Wow, you just took a piss on the graves of ever veteren who has died to GIVE us these freedoms.

How does it feel to be a major league asshole?

----"However, with the anti-flag-burning rhetoric growing in the US it seems the neo-cons are just using that as an excuse to ignore the concerns of citizens who are not exactly followers of the GOP platform. Not just flag-burning, but the whole philosophy behind protesting is being challenged by the whole flag-burning debate and may one day be outlawed altogether as being 'unpatriotic' or even 'treasonous'. "

Do you not see the flawed logic you are using?

Of course flag burning will become treasonous someday (if the vindictive cycle continues) it will have the same effect on legal protestors as if a day comes where legal gun owners of the so called 'Assault weapons' are actually banned again (though you could still buy them :confused:--->ban?hmm could of fooled me). Do people not see that every time a freedom is restricted or taken from one kind of American (protestor or gun owner, either side) then they go after a freedom the 'enemy' enjoys? Now who do you think will win in the end? I'm willing to bet the Conservatives since they have the armed populace on thier side and if in power as President also our military. Then the day will come eventually where you can not burn a flag in protest (believe me a slippery slope of your freedoms will begin) and then one day you will all be killed just for any dissent. Even though this would be more of my side 'winning' (if there was such a thing) I still would be against it... but do as you will, keep driving to restrict someone elses freedoms and I promise they will go after the ones you cherish in return. ;)

Goed, I fully respect freedom and all those who have died defending it. However, I recoil at those who don't. If you're a Bush-hating pyromaniac, It hink it would be much more appropriate to burn a picture of George Bush, wouldn't it? Carry your signs, say your chants, but don't burn my flag.

And please, don't give me that slippery slope argument. Machine guns went under extreme regulation in 1934, but semi-automatic weapons are still legal (no matter what certain people (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=15) may want...). Is it so much to ask that people not burn the flag in protest? Yes. Yes it is. You can't get through to these people.

These are just my personal beliefs, I would never burn a flag of any country, flags are a symbol of a nation and it's people.

Flag Etiquette
STANDARDS of RESPECT

The Flag Code, which formalizes and unifies the traditional ways in which we give respect to the flag, also contains specific instructions on how the flag is not to be used. They are:

* The flag should never be dipped to any person or thing. It is flown upside down only as a distress signal.
* The flag should not be used as a drapery, or for covering a speakers desk, draping a platform, or for any decoration in general. Bunting of blue, white and red stripes is available for these purposes. The blue stripe of the bunting should be on the top.
* The flag should never be used for any advertising purpose. It should not be embroidered, printed or otherwise impressed on such articles as cushions, handkerchiefs, napkins, boxes, or anything intended to be discarded after temporary use. Advertising signs should not be attached to the staff or halyard
* The flag should not be used as part of a costume or athletic uniform, except that a flag patch may be used on the uniform of military personnel, fireman, policeman and members of patriotic organizations.
* The flag should never have placed on it, or attached to it, any mark, insignia, letter, word, number, figure, or drawing of any kind.
* The flag should never be used as a receptacle for receiving, holding, carrying, or delivering anything.

When the flag is lowered, no part of it should touch the ground or any other object; it should be received by waiting hands and arms. To store the flag it should be folded neatly and ceremoniously.

The flag should be cleaned and mended when necessary.

When a flag is so worn it is no longer fit to serve as a symbol of our country, it should be destroyed by burning in a dignified manner.

Note: Most American Legion Posts regularly conduct a dignified flag burning ceremony, often on Flag Day, June 14th. Many Cub Scout Packs, Boy Scout Troops, and Girl Scout Troops retire flags regularly as well. Contact your local American Legion Hall or Scout Troop to inquire about the availability of this service.

Displaying the Flag Outdoors

When the flag is displayed from a staff projecting from a window, balcony, or a building, the union should be at the peak of the staff unless the flag is at half staff.

When it is displayed from the same flagpole with another flag - of a state, community, society or Scout unit - the flag of the United States must always be at the top except that the church pennant may be flown above the flag during church services for Navy personnel when conducted by a Naval chaplain on a ship at sea.

When the flag is displayed over a street, it should be hung vertically, with the union to the north or east. If the flag is suspended over a sidewalk, the flag's union should be farthest from the building.

When flown with flags of states, communities, or societies on separate flag poles which are of the same height and in a straight line, the flag of the United States is always placed in the position of honor - to its own right.
..The other flags may be smaller but none may be larger.
..No other flag ever should be placed above it.
..The flag of the United States is always the first flag raised and the last to be lowered.

When flown with the national banner of other countries, each flag must be displayed from a separate pole of the same height. Each flag should be the same size. They should be raised and lowered simultaneously. The flag of one nation may not be displayed above that of another nation.

Raising and Lowering the Flag

The flag should be raised briskly and lowered slowly and ceremoniously. Ordinarily it should be displayed only between sunrise and sunset. It should be illuminated if displayed at night.
The flag of the United States of America is saluted as it is hoisted and lowered. The salute is held until the flag is unsnapped from the halyard or through the last note of music, whichever is the longest.

Displaying the Flag Indoors

When on display, the flag is accorded the place of honor, always positioned to its own right. Place it to the right of the speaker or staging area or sanctuary. Other flags should be to the left.

The flag of the United States of America should be at the center and at the highest point of the group when a number of flags of states, localities, or societies are grouped for display.

When one flag is used with the flag of the United States of America and the staffs are crossed, the flag of the United States is placed on its own right with its staff in front of the other flag.

When displaying the flag against a wall, vertically or horizontally, the flag's union (stars) should be at the top, to the flag's own right, and to the observer's left.

Parading and Saluting the Flag

When carried in a procession, the flag should be to the right of the marchers. When other flags are carried, the flag of the United States may be centered in front of the others or carried to their right. When the flag passes in a procession, or when it is hoisted or lowered, all should face the flag and salute.

The Salute
To salute, all persons come to attention. Those in uniform give the appropriate formal salute. Citizens not in uniform salute by placing their right hand over the heart and men with head cover should remove it and hold it to left shoulder, hand over the heart. Members of organizations in formation salute upon command of the person in charge.

The Pledge of Allegiance and National Anthem

The pledge of allegiance should be rendered by standing at attention, facing the flag, and saluting.
When the national anthem is played or sung, citizens should stand at attention and salute at the first note and hold the salute through the last note. The salute is directed to the flag, if displayed, otherwise to the music.

The Flag in Mourning

To place the flag at half staff, hoist it to the peak for an instant and lower it to a position half way between the top and bottom of the staff. The flag is to be raised again to the peak for a moment before it is lowered. On Memorial Day the flag is displayed at half staff until noon and at full staff from noon to sunset.

The flag is to be flown at half staff in mourning for designated, principal government leaders and upon presidential or gubernatorial order.

When used to cover a casket, the flag should be placed with the union at the head and over the left shoulder. It should not be lowered into the grave.

Since many people on here are very astute readers I am sure they will notice that is says nothing about a ban on burning the flag. A flag is burned when it is retired, you can take it to any VFW Post to do this, but is a personal belief of mine that the flag should not be burned. Much like Christians will not burn the bible, Muslims will not burn the Kuran (50 different spellings, hope I got one right), and Jews will not burn the Old Testament, why? becuase these are more than just books to them, they represent something more than they are, that is how I feel about the American Flag, it represents something much more than I am.

And I got pissed when watching the Olympics, American Athletes left on the leaf circlet thing (forgot the name) while the Flag was being raised and the natonal anthem was being played, they are athletes, the anthem has been played at sporting events all through their lives, they should know by now to remove the thing (once again, forgot name) place their right hand over their hearts. Although in their own defense they usually aren't the ones with hats on at the time, they are usually the one's getting ready to run, or swim, or play a game of basketball, whichever sport they are in.

Flags, Uniforms & Insignia

Battle Flags "Carrying The Regimental Colors"

Flags carried into battle were useful not only for identification purposes, but also as morale boosters for the men. The use of distinctive battle flags was not unique to the American Civil War. For centuries, British regiments had carried distinctive regimental flags. From the War of 1812 through the Civil War, infantry regiments of the United States carried a blue battle flag emblazoned with the eagle and shield of the Union. Prior to the Civil War, with no apparent sanction, certain regiments painted on the regimental colors the names of the battles in which they had participated, as a display of battle "honors". This practice continued in both the Union and the Confederacy.

Regimental Colors were carried by the color sergeant and were protected by the color guard, a group of usually less than a dozen soldiers whose responsibility it was to ensure the emblem of regimental and state honor boldly led the way into battle, yet was not captured by the enemy. Each side in a battle naturally tried to shoot down the other's flag and the color guard bore a very dangerous honor. The 26th NC lost 14 standard bearers in the first day of battle at Gettysburg. For obvious reasons, mounted organizations- dragoons, mounted riflemen, and cavalry- carried much smaller flags those serving on foot. Not only would a 6'x6' flag have been impossible to carry on a horse at a canter, but compared with the infantry, the cavalry and artillery units had much less need to identify themselves on the battlefield.

Confederate battle flags were many and varied. Those units in the eastern theater, where the army tended to get more support from the government, were fairly uniform, while the remote armies in the western theater and the Trans-Mississippi had greater diversity in styles and patters of flags.

Fascinating Fact: During the Battle of Fredricksburg, the colorbearer of the 21st Mass. Infantry Regiment was shot. Sgt. Thomas Plunkett of Company E seized the flag and carried it until a shell tore off one of his arms and part of the other; his blood stained the flag as he fell. The flag was allowed out of the Massachusetts State House for Plunkett's funeral in 1885.

Hell Naw! The American flag is a symbol of our freedom why the hell would you want to burn it up!

I think people shold be able to burn the Flag, so long as afterwords, we can burn them to protest their "protest"/idiocy.

and i love the confederate flag as well and i have one along with an american flag hanging upstairs

I think people shold be able to burn the Flag, so long as afterwords, we can burn them to protest their "protest"/idiocy.

YES! Thats awesome

I have only seen an American Flag burned a hand full of times, mostly by Al Qaeda, twice by americans, once to protest Vietnam and the other time to protest the use of Fur, now explain how that is supposed to help their cause? burning an American Flag to protest the use of Fur, animals were put on the world for a purpose, the dog to help man, the deer for food, etc. everything has a purpose, perhaps the purpose of Beavers/Minks is to keep us warm, Fur is after all very warm, the animals don't have it to look nice.

----"However, with the anti-flag-burning rhetoric growing in the US it seems the neo-cons are just using that as an excuse to ignore the concerns of citizens who are not exactly followers of the GOP platform. Not just flag-burning, but the whole philosophy behind protesting is being challenged by the whole flag-burning debate and may one day be outlawed altogether as being 'unpatriotic' or even 'treasonous'. "

Do you not see the flawed logic you are using?

Of course flag burning will become treasonous someday (if the vindictive cycle continues) it will have the same effect on legal protestors as if a day comes where legal gun owners of the so called 'Assault weapons' are actually banned again (though you could still buy them :confused:--->ban?hmm could of fooled me). Do people not see that every time a freedom is restricted or taken from one kind of American (protestor or gun owner, either side) then they go after a freedom the 'enemy' enjoys? Now who do you think will win in the end? I'm willing to bet the Conservatives since they have the armed populace on thier side and if in power as President also our military. Then the day will come eventually where you can not burn a flag in protest (believe me a slippery slope of your freedoms will begin) and then one day you will all be killed just for any dissent. Even though this would be more of my side 'winning' (if there was such a thing) I still would be against it... but do as you will, keep driving to restrict someone elses freedoms and I promise they will go after the ones you cherish in return. ;)


Flawed...? Aren't we in agreement? :confused:

Gun laws are really a seperate issue since gun have the added burden of being deadly weapons. Burning flags aren't exactly deadly (unless you sprayed too much gasoline around to light the damn thing...).

In each case though symbolism plays a lot. The gun means a lot to some and the same goes for a flag. Many don't have an emotional attachment to guns and only see the deadly side, while others see some sort of patriotism involved (or something to that effect).

Some people burn flags as a symbol to represent the values they see being turned to ash by the government's policies. Others just see a symbol they've been raised to revere being turned to ash.

Its a culture clash and misunderstandings happen. Protesters don't see it as hating their country but others do. And the US and other democracies must have freedoms that account for these differences. That's what freedom is. We can't make everyone adhere to one philosophy or point of view, that's what fascism and communism are about.

All judgements that end up restricticting freedom (drug use, gambling, etc) must have a great deal of work and statistics supporting the cancelation or reduction of these freedoms in order to be justified and hopefully, a sensible and bipartisan descision will be reached. Policy should not be made on the 'feelings' or 'beliefs' of a select few. Well-debated, cold hard facts only please.

i burned a flag years ago at a protest, and while i still think i was within my rights to do so, i believe now that it was a tactical political mistake. it was a small protest against the invasion of panama, and we got tons of local media attention, but it was all about the flag burning and nothing about what we were actually protesting. also while i was never physically attacked, it did create hatred for us in a fair percentage of people, which severed absolutely no positive political end.

it was ultimately a self defeating act. so while i will defend anyone right to make the same mistakes as me, i would absolutely not encourage anyone to.

I have only seen an American Flag burned a hand full of times, mostly by Al Qaeda, twice by americans, once to protest Vietnam and the other time to protest the use of Fur, now explain how that is supposed to help their cause? burning an American Flag to protest the use of Fur, animals were put on the world for a purpose, the dog to help man, the deer for food, etc. everything has a purpose, perhaps the purpose of Beavers/Minks is to keep us warm, Fur is after all very warm, the animals don't have it to look nice.

I think one of PETA's mandates is to conduct totally illogical protests with as much flawed and circumstantial self-serving information as possible. Try and ignore the annoying weirdos. Don't overthink. PETA has confusing logic and it will drive you absolutely MAD figuring it out.

and pass me a Big Mac.

Although they do bring out the pretty ones for those nekkid protests so at least they make some enjoyable advertising.

Do you think they'll sleep with me if I promise to eat a salad afterwards? :D

I have only seen an American Flag burned a hand full of times, mostly by Al Qaeda, twice by americans, once to protest Vietnam and the other time to protest the use of Fur, now explain how that is supposed to help their cause? burning an American Flag to protest the use of Fur, animals were put on the world for a purpose, the dog to help man, the deer for food, etc. everything has a purpose, perhaps the purpose of Beavers/Minks is to keep us warm, Fur is after all very warm, the animals don't have it to look nice.

Amen, i think those animal rights groups like PETA are totally out of wack and i will continue to use animals in the way God intended them, for food and comfort.

i burned a flag years ago at a protest, and while i still think i was within my rights to do so, i believe now that it was a tactical political mistake. it was a small protest against the invasion of panama, and we got tons of local media attention, but it was all about the flag burning and nothing about what we were actually protesting. also while i was never physically attacked, it did create hatred for us in a fair percentage of people, which severed absolutely no positive political end.

it was ultimately a self defeating act. so while i will defend anyone right to make the same mistakes as me, i would absolutely not encourage anyone to.

Good point. Its hard to change the beliefs of a large group of like-thinking people.

And far too often being 'right' to do something doesn't make it a good idea.

Hey, I'm a member of PETA! How dare you insult the People for Eating Tasty Animals!

Doesn't PETA allow the killing of animals for food or health concerns (e.g., rats, cockroaches)?

Wow, talk about leap of logic. I completely understand someone being against flag burning. It's viewed as if it's an attack on their whole way of life.


Yup, they see it that way but it isn't. Its viewed as attacking a policy of a government that are themselves burning the values the country was founded on. Its a conflict of culture. One sees a dog as a pet and another sees it as food.

The ones who are offended at a burning flag will have to learn that they are not being maligned and its just a misinterpretation. Although this may be asking too much.


That being said, I and many many other "neo-cons" will defend to the death someone's right to protest, right to speak out against what I hold dear. I dont feel the protestors in NYC are any more treasonous or unpatriotic than the delegates themselves.


Then you're not a neo-con. Your a conservative. I know things are polarized in america but please don't think "neo-con" is a term that lumps all conservatives together. Be the McCain not the Bush!


Why must you insult conservatives, and say they are against protests "altogether" simply because we do not believe the same things you do?

I am not insulting conservatives, just the extreme wing of the conservatives.

As past revolutionary democracies have experienced, they all became dictatorships at some point before becoming real democracies after they are defeated. Rarely, if not never, has a democracy come back to normalcy after reaching a fever-pitch of rhetoric as it is now in America and it may very well be time for the US to join Japan, France and Germany in this club.

A good (and eerie) article that lists the parallels between the rise of Hitler and what's going on now in America can be found here:

http://www.thomhartmann.com/democracyfailed.shtml

The situation in the US is a dangerous one, make no mistake and I am not ignorant of how offended some people get when comparing the US to nazi germany. However the parallels exist. Similar parallels also exist between Japan's fall during the Meiji era and the situation in Iraq.

Hey, I'm a member of PETA! How dare you insult the People for Eating Tasty Animals!

Doesn't PETA allow the killing of animals for food or health concerns (e.g., rats, cockroaches)?

lol

Who, then, is disappearing? What people shall be the first against the wall in Bush's reign of terror?

There are also parallels with the 1972 Presidential election. One might even argue that Bush is the conservative leader (Churchill) reaching across the Atlantic to the socialistic leader (Blair/Roosevelt) for help in taking out the mustachioed dictator (Hussein/Hitler) of a medium-sized nation (Iraq/Germany) that once swept down on a small nation to the east with little trouble (Kuwait/Poland), but had trouble with a larger eastern nation (Iran/Russia). Alright, I suppose I went a bit too far towards the end, but don't predict history by parallels.

I propose a toast: to future incumbent Republican landslides every third Presidency (Nixon, 49 states in 1972 - Ford - Carter - Reagan, 49 states in 1984 - Bush - Clinton -Bush, landslide predicted in 2004)!

Flags are symbols. I have issues with people worshiping symbols.

It's a freedom of expression to burn the flag. Period. And the first amendment guarantees that right--provided it's your flag to burn. :)

I have the utmost respect for those that fought for the US. That is completely separate from the flag itself.

Should people be allowed to burn the US Constitution or the Declaration of Independence?

Depends -- do you mean the actual, physical, unique original document that is in the National Archives, or just a reprint of the text of either?

If you mean the actual original document, no -- but more because the physical object has great historic significance, even if for whatever reason you happen to disagree with it. It would be like torching the Sistine Chapel -- the world's only got one of them things.

But if you mean a COPY of the document? Why not?

Others before me have made the argument that there IS a distinction between the idea of "a symbol" in general, and a specific EXAMPLE of that symbol that was associated with a pivotal historic event (i.e., there is a difference between the exact specific flag those firefighters flew at Ground Zero when they were starting the clean up, and the flag I can go get this afternoon at a WalMart). It's the historic association that gives that one specific example more significance.

Actually, let's flip this on its head. Say that that flag that WAS at Ground Zero was in a museum, and someone broke in and burned it. How would you feel about the museum's curators "replacing it" by popping down the street, buying a new one, and hanging it up in the museum in its place?

[QUOTE=Paxania]Who, then, is disappearing? What people shall be the first against the wall in Bush's reign of terror?

There are also parallels with the 1972 Presidential election. One might even argue that Bush is the conservative leader (Churchill) reaching across the Atlantic to the socialistic leader (Blair/Roosevelt) for help in taking out the mustachioed dictator (Hussein/Hitler) of a medium-sized nation (Iraq/Germany) that once swept down on a small nation to the east with little trouble (Kuwait/Poland), but had trouble with a larger eastern nation (Iran/Russia). Alright, I suppose I went a bit too far towards the end, but don't predict history by parallels.
QUOTE]

Well you overlook one crucial detail. Hitler was actually invading other countries at the time and Saddam didn't invade anyone and was absolutely no threat militarily as we now know. Afghanistan was the threat to america and on that all of america's allies and even muslim nations were supporting the US on that war front. Then Iraq was invaded and all that evaporated but still these other countries support the Afghanistan front. Now we risk losing both wars. And for some illogical reason the Afghanistan front was far too undermanned to begin with.

The burden lies on the one who begins a war to boost nationalist fervor at home and increase their political power. Usually he's the guy who fires the first shot or at least finds decent justification to do what he wants. Saddam started the war with Kuwait because Kuwait was tapping his oil pipelines (justification) but he went far too overboard in his war and spooked enough people that the first gulf war started.

Should people be allowed to burn the US Constitution or the Declaration of Independence?
No, because it isn't their property.

If you legally buy it though, you could wipe your bum with it if you really want. I might think it wrong to do such a thing with such an important artifact, but could not tell you or order you to do otherwise, it is your property and as long as you do not threaten anybodies rights you can do what you want with it.

Depends -- do you mean the actual, physical, unique original document that is in the National Archives, or just a reprint of the text of either?

If you mean the actual original document, no -- but more because the physical object has great historic significance, even if for whatever reason you happen to disagree with it. It would be like torching the Sistine Chapel -- the world's only got one of them things.

Even if you ignore that emotive crap about preseving unique artifacts, you can't because it doesn't belong to you.

If you legally buy the Sistine Chapel, you can burn down if you want and provided that the flames threaten no one elses property (or you don't try and claim insurance) you are within your rights

No, because it isn't their property.

If you legally buy it though, you could wipe your bum with it if you really want.:D :D :D :D

If you legally buy it though, you could wipe your bum with it if you really want.
Now there's an idea. Bill of Rights toilet paper. I can think of MANY places in the Washington, DC area where such a product ought to be put in the stalls.

Then again, those who are most interested in wiping their butts with the Bill of Rights are usually so full of shit that they'd never have occasion to use it.

I have only seen an American Flag burned a hand full of times, mostly by Al Qaeda, twice by americans, once to protest Vietnam and the other time to protest the use of Fur, now explain how that is supposed to help their cause? burning an American Flag to protest the use of Fur, animals were put on the world for a purpose, the dog to help man, the deer for food, etc. everything has a purpose, perhaps the purpose of Beavers/Minks is to keep us warm, Fur is after all very warm, the animals don't have it to look nice.
Wow, idiots do something so we should ban the act because idiots do it. Should we also ban twanging elastic bands, driving cars, firing guns etc. etc.

It doesn't help their cause, but then again PETA are hardly renowned for the intellectualism of their arguements, remember one of their leading figures recently said something along the lines of "A boy is a pig is a dog is a rat."


[Edit] actual quote by Peter Singer (more recently said by Ingrid Newkirk, PETA's President) and is "There is no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They are all mammals."

Does this mean [s]he is in favour of bestiality I wonder?

...driving cars, firing guns...

>:-(

No.

That is another thing, when people protest by burning an American flag little mention is made of their cause, the media says this:

"And in other news, disgruntled protestors set fire to an american flag to draw attention to their cause."

Now, where in that statement was their cause mentioned? Most people were so shocked by seeing americans burn an american flag that all they remembered was that the flag was burning.

I can understand why someone would want to burn an American Flag, I can think of some reasons why they would, to protest the invasion of a foreign country for example, that is an understandable reason, but I am willing to bet that burning an American Flag will alienate more people than people it would get to join their cause, most American's are still fiercely patriotic, protesting or not, they protest because they think that it is in the best interest for the country, but their means of doing so may be wrong, or the may have misjudged the consequences/outcome.

Actually, burning the flag in protest (if that is why you are truly doing it) makes perfect sense. If the flag becomes soiled, it is supposed to be burned. If the country is doing something that is unjust, then the idea of the flag has been soiled. If the country basically shits on its principles, then the flag has been soiled - and that is really what many protesters are saying.

Of course, although there have been many injustices performed by my country, I have never felt the need to burn a flag - because I believe in that most people, deep down, are good guys and that the majority of the country isn't shit.

PETA, what a joke, I think killing an animal in one quick motion is quite ethical, and upwards of 95% of the cow for instance is used, bones are ground up and put in food, the steaks are quite delicious, and everything else is thrown into a grinder and BAM! you have hot dogs.

And tell me, how is the Atkins diet supposed to work? Check the food pyramid, you should be getting the most grains, and if you look closely you see something that says servings, I am willing to bet that 60% or more of obese people eat more than the recommended number of servings, hell I do and I am just a little of 160 lbs.

I don't believe they should. It is one thing to disagree with your nation. It is another to do it in a way that makes it look like you hate the country so much that you want it destroyed. That's why we should make burning it illegal. Of course, that can only be done with a constitutional amendment.

I don't believe they should. It is one thing to disagree with your nation. It is another to do it in a way that makes it look like you hate the country so much that you want it destroyed. That's why we should make burning it illegal. Of course, that can only be done with a constitutional amendment.

Technically you are right, but there are two types of Amendments, written and unwritten, there have been hundreds of unwritten amendments over the years, perhaps this could be one of them, basically this is my scenario.

Liberals burn the flag to protest the occupation of Iraq
Bush starts a conservative push to make this illegal
Congress passes the law by a slim 54-41 majority
2 Months later liberals are arrested for once again burning the flag in protest, arrests follow
Appeal eventually reaches supreme court
By now it is a political issue, the law is held up be a 5-4 decision (5 republicans and 4 democrats in the Supreme Court).
Flag burning is oulawed with heavy punishments and fines, repeated offenses can result in treason.

That is just my scenarion, and I probably went a little extreme.

Treason is the only crime defined in the Constitution. Flag burning cannot become treason without a Constitutional amendment.

PETA, what a joke, I think killing an animal in one quick motion is quite ethical, and upwards of 95% of the cow for instance is used, bones are ground up and put in food, the steaks are quite delicious, and everything else is thrown into a grinder and BAM! you have hot dogs.

And tell me, how is the Atkins diet supposed to work? Check the food pyramid, you should be getting the most grains, and if you look closely you see something that says servings, I am willing to bet that 60% or more of obese people eat more than the recommended number of servings, hell I do and I am just a little of 160 lbs.

A friend of mine in medical school said it best.
"People on the Atkins diet are alive because they cheat."

PETA, what a joke, I think killing an animal in one quick motion is quite ethical, and upwards of 95% of the cow for instance is used, bones are ground up and put in food, the steaks are quite delicious, and everything else is thrown into a grinder and BAM! you have hot dogs.

No that is unethical.

What is ethical is setting mink free into an alien envirinment where they become the top predator and practically destroy a whole eco system.

I voted other. Basically it's yes under the following strictly applied caveats:
1) So long as it is yours - no burning of flags that don't belong to you.
2) So long as it is done in accordance with all local, state, and federal public safety statutes regarding burning, pollution, public nusance, and so forth. Get your statutory permit.
3) So long as your intent of message as speech is clear. Burning a flag as a statement that you hate the US is ok. Burning it cause you think flag burning is cool is no longer defensible as speech.
4) So long as it done in such a manner as to not be considered incitement, fighting words, or provocation. Burning a flag in front of a USMC base, at an American legion or VFW meeting, or (worst of all) at Arlington Cemetary during a medal of honor winner's funeral, would be all three. Burning it at an anti-war demonstration while making sure no one would be offended, probably wouldn't.

Violate any of those restrictions, and it's no longer permissible. You can't legally destroy property, in violation of public safety laws, for the hell of it, and start a riot.

These are just my personal beliefs, I would never burn a flag of any country, flags are a symbol of a nation and it's people.

Flag Etiquette
STANDARDS of RESPECT

The Flag Code, which formalizes and unifies the traditional ways in which we give respect to the flag, also contains specific instructions on how the flag is not to be used. They are:

* The flag should never be dipped to any person or thing. It is flown upside down only as a distress signal.
* The flag should not be used as a drapery, or for covering a speakers desk, draping a platform, or for any decoration in general. Bunting of blue, white and red stripes is available for these purposes. The blue stripe of the bunting should be on the top.
* The flag should never be used for any advertising purpose. It should not be embroidered, printed or otherwise impressed on such articles as cushions, handkerchiefs, napkins, boxes, or anything intended to be discarded after temporary use. Advertising signs should not be attached to the staff or halyard
* The flag should not be used as part of a costume or athletic uniform, except that a flag patch may be used on the uniform of military personnel, fireman, policeman and members of patriotic organizations.
* The flag should never have placed on it, or attached to it, any mark, insignia, letter, word, number, figure, or drawing of any kind.
* The flag should never be used as a receptacle for receiving, holding, carrying, or delivering anything.

When the flag is lowered, no part of it should touch the ground or any other object; it should be received by waiting hands and arms. To store the flag it should be folded neatly and ceremoniously.

The flag should be cleaned and mended when necessary.

When a flag is so worn it is no longer fit to serve as a symbol of our country, it should be destroyed by burning in a dignified manner.

Note: Most American Legion Posts regularly conduct a dignified flag burning ceremony, often on Flag Day, June 14th. Many Cub Scout Packs, Boy Scout Troops, and Girl Scout Troops retire flags regularly as well. Contact your local American Legion Hall or Scout Troop to inquire about the availability of this service.

Displaying the Flag Outdoors

When the flag is displayed from a staff projecting from a window, balcony, or a building, the union should be at the peak of the staff unless the flag is at half staff.

When it is displayed from the same flagpole with another flag - of a state, community, society or Scout unit - the flag of the United States must always be at the top except that the church pennant may be flown above the flag during church services for Navy personnel when conducted by a Naval chaplain on a ship at sea.

When the flag is displayed over a street, it should be hung vertically, with the union to the north or east. If the flag is suspended over a sidewalk, the flag's union should be farthest from the building.

When flown with flags of states, communities, or societies on separate flag poles which are of the same height and in a straight line, the flag of the United States is always placed in the position of honor - to its own right.
..The other flags may be smaller but none may be larger.
..No other flag ever should be placed above it.
..The flag of the United States is always the first flag raised and the last to be lowered.

When flown with the national banner of other countries, each flag must be displayed from a separate pole of the same height. Each flag should be the same size. They should be raised and lowered simultaneously. The flag of one nation may not be displayed above that of another nation.

Raising and Lowering the Flag

The flag should be raised briskly and lowered slowly and ceremoniously. Ordinarily it should be displayed only between sunrise and sunset. It should be illuminated if displayed at night.
The flag of the United States of America is saluted as it is hoisted and lowered. The salute is held until the flag is unsnapped from the halyard or through the last note of music, whichever is the longest.

Displaying the Flag Indoors

When on display, the flag is accorded the place of honor, always positioned to its own right. Place it to the right of the speaker or staging area or sanctuary. Other flags should be to the left.

The flag of the United States of America should be at the center and at the highest point of the group when a number of flags of states, localities, or societies are grouped for display.

When one flag is used with the flag of the United States of America and the staffs are crossed, the flag of the United States is placed on its own right with its staff in front of the other flag.

When displaying the flag against a wall, vertically or horizontally, the flag's union (stars) should be at the top, to the flag's own right, and to the observer's left.

Parading and Saluting the Flag

When carried in a procession, the flag should be to the right of the marchers. When other flags are carried, the flag of the United States may be centered in front of the others or carried to their right. When the flag passes in a procession, or when it is hoisted or lowered, all should face the flag and salute.

The Salute
To salute, all persons come to attention. Those in uniform give the appropriate formal salute. Citizens not in uniform salute by placing their right hand over the heart and men with head cover should remove it and hold it to left shoulder, hand over the heart. Members of organizations in formation salute upon command of the person in charge.

The Pledge of Allegiance and National Anthem

The pledge of allegiance should be rendered by standing at attention, facing the flag, and saluting.
When the national anthem is played or sung, citizens should stand at attention and salute at the first note and hold the salute through the last note. The salute is directed to the flag, if displayed, otherwise to the music.

The Flag in Mourning

To place the flag at half staff, hoist it to the peak for an instant and lower it to a position half way between the top and bottom of the staff. The flag is to be raised again to the peak for a moment before it is lowered. On Memorial Day the flag is displayed at half staff until noon and at full staff from noon to sunset.

The flag is to be flown at half staff in mourning for designated, principal government leaders and upon presidential or gubernatorial order.

When used to cover a casket, the flag should be placed with the union at the head and over the left shoulder. It should not be lowered into the grave.

Since many people on here are very astute readers I am sure they will notice that is says nothing about a ban on burning the flag. A flag is burned when it is retired, you can take it to any VFW Post to do this, but is a personal belief of mine that the flag should not be burned. Much like Christians will not burn the bible, Muslims will not burn the Kuran (50 different spellings, hope I got one right), and Jews will not burn the Old Testament, why? becuase these are more than just books to them, they represent something more than they are, that is how I feel about the American Flag, it represents something much more than I am.

And I got pissed when watching the Olympics, American Athletes left on the leaf circlet thing (forgot the name) while the Flag was being raised and the natonal anthem was being played, they are athletes, the anthem has been played at sporting events all through their lives, they should know by now to remove the thing (once again, forgot name) place their right hand over their hearts. Although in their own defense they usually aren't the ones with hats on at the time, they are usually the one's getting ready to run, or swim, or play a game of basketball, whichever sport they are in.

Flags, Uniforms & Insignia

Battle Flags "Carrying The Regimental Colors"

Flags carried into battle were useful not only for identification purposes, but also as morale boosters for the men. The use of distinctive battle flags was not unique to the American Civil War. For centuries, British regiments had carried distinctive regimental flags. From the War of 1812 through the Civil War, infantry regiments of the United States carried a blue battle flag emblazoned with the eagle and shield of the Union. Prior to the Civil War, with no apparent sanction, certain regiments painted on the regimental colors the names of the battles in which they had participated, as a display of battle "honors". This practice continued in both the Union and the Confederacy.

Regimental Colors were carried by the color sergeant and were protected by the color guard, a group of usually less than a dozen soldiers whose responsibility it was to ensure the emblem of regimental and state honor boldly led the way into battle, yet was not captured by the enemy. Each side in a battle naturally tried to shoot down the other's flag and the color guard bore a very dangerous honor. The 26th NC lost 14 standard bearers in the first day of battle at Gettysburg. For obvious reasons, mounted organizations- dragoons, mounted riflemen, and cavalry- carried much smaller flags those serving on foot. Not only would a 6'x6' flag have been impossible to carry on a horse at a canter, but compared with the infantry, the cavalry and artillery units had much less need to identify themselves on the battlefield.

Confederate battle flags were many and varied. Those units in the eastern theater, where the army tended to get more support from the government, were fairly uniform, while the remote armies in the western theater and the Trans-Mississippi had greater diversity in styles and patters of flags.

Fascinating Fact: During the Battle of Fredricksburg, the colorbearer of the 21st Mass. Infantry Regiment was shot. Sgt. Thomas Plunkett of Company E seized the flag and carried it until a shell tore off one of his arms and part of the other; his blood stained the flag as he fell. The flag was allowed out of the Massachusetts State House for Plunkett's funeral in 1885.


Thank you West Pacific. I'd say that if you burn the flag as a protest, doing so in a dignified and respectful manner would carry a whol hell of a lot more weight than doing so in an undignified and disrespectful manner. The former respects the symbolism and the ideas. The latter simply comes off as being an ass.

Even if you ignore that emotive crap about preseving unique artifacts, you can't because it doesn't belong to you.

If you legally buy the Sistine Chapel, you can burn down if you want and provided that the flames threaten no one elses property (or you don't try and claim insurance) you are within your rights

Right, but we weren't debating the existant legality of it; I have a feeling that the original poster was getting more at the whole idea of whether a given object can manifest any kind of intrinsic significance. (wonders briefly what's up with the ten-dollar words she's using, going on) He wasn't getting at the legalese, he was getting more at "a thing is just a thing, so why attach such significance to a mere thing."

Legally you are right, but I think the whole ethical question is an interesting one too.

I voted other. Basically it's yes under the following strictly applied caveats:
1) So long as it is yours - no burning of flags that don't belong to you.
2) So long as it is done in accordance with all local, state, and federal public safety statutes regarding burning, pollution, public nusance, and so forth. Get your statutory permit.
3) So long as your intent of message as speech is clear. Burning a flag as a statement that you hate the US is ok. Burning it cause you think flag burning is cool is no longer defensible as speech.
4) So long as it done in such a manner as to not be considered incitement, fighting words, or provocation. Burning a flag in front of a USMC base, at an American legion or VFW meeting, or (worst of all) at Arlington Cemetary during a medal of honor winner's funeral, would be all three. Burning it at an anti-war demonstration while making sure no one would be offended, probably wouldn't.

Violate any of those restrictions, and it's no longer permissible. You can't legally destroy property, in violation of public safety laws, for the hell of it, and start a riot.

You know what, that is a good point, so if I am mayor of New York and I don't want to put up with these damn hippies burning flags all I have to do is is make a public burning ban, on all objects, in within the city limits, of course the enforcement would be hit and miss.

You know what, that is a good point, so if I am mayor of New York and I don't want to put up with these damn hippies burning flags all I have to do is is make a public burning ban, on all objects, in within the city limits, of course the enforcement would be hit and miss.

3 objections:
1) I only mentioned existing statutes.
2) You can't just ban public burning of everything by fiat. You have to get that through the New York City Council (http://www.nyccouncil.info/).
3) Selective enforcement can be challenged in court fairly easily.

Burning a flag should be allowed. Why does it make such a shock? Because we are a world that revolves around symbols.

Don't believe me? Find a bill that's $20-or higher!-and tear it in half. Go on. Take the cash, and rip it in half. That's right, hold it in your hands, and *scccdritch* tear it.


For all of you who didn't...why? You could just go down to the bank and get a new one. Why didn't you rip it in half?

Burning a flag should be allowed. Why does it make such a shock? Because we are a world that revolves around symbols. Don't believe me? Find a bill that's $20-or higher!-and tear it in half. Go on. Take the cash, and rip it in half. That's right, hold it in your hands, and *scccdritch* tear it. For all of you who didn't...why? You could just go down to the bank and get a new one. Why didn't you rip it in half?

Ok I just did, and you know what? I am so glad somebody capitalized on a thing called tape! hehe :)

If you have an intact half of a bill, you can take it to a federal reserve bank and get a new one. I recommend trying to trade in both!

You know what, that is a good point, so if I am mayor of New York and I don't want to put up with these damn hippies burning flags all I have to do is is make a public burning ban, on all objects, in within the city limits.

I apologize for going off on a tangent, but:

WHAT "hippies burning flags" in New York City? Because I didn't see any last week. In fact, the media buzz has been such that except for the actions of one group, almost all the dissent against the convention has been remarkably peaceful, especially taking the size of the demostrations into account.

Although (coming back onto topic) I will second the emotion about hewing to local ordinances about burning anything. That one group that didn't behave, that's what they did, and I was in the area when it happened and was rather unappreciative (especially considering I tend to be a free speech advocate).

This issue comes down to the right of expression versus the right of property.

As Americans, it is our duty to question and oppose our leaders, our policies and in fact our country when we feel that they do not represent our best interests. To burn the flag is a mark of protest and an expression of our desire for change, whether or not that desire is shared by the majority. The symbol the flag represents is America and to burn it is to rock the boat for all those that care about this nation's future, for good or ill.

But the next question arises: Which flag am I allowed to burn? While the symbol of the nation belongs to all its citizens, the particular piece of cloth on which the symbol is designed may belong to people or companies. If I buy an American flag from a local business, that flag belongs to me for all purposes. Should I choose to burn that particular flag, I should never be held within the courts of our land. If, however, I take the American flag from, say, a local library, or steal it from a business, that is a very different issue altogether, and I deserve to be rightly punished for the theft, and the act of vandalism if I go through with the act of burning.

Now, why should we not burn the Bill of Rights or the Constitution, for example? Well, because the original documents do not belong to us, but to the government that owns the museums in which they are kept. To destroy them is to destroy public property. If, on the other hand, I were to purchase a copy of the Bill of Rights or Constitution and then burn it, my rights to do so are perfectly legitimate.

* The flag should not be used as a drapery, or for covering a speakers desk, draping a platform, or for any decoration in general. Bunting of blue, white and red stripes is available for these purposes. The blue stripe of the bunting should be on the top.
Does this include the coffins of Military Personel?

West Pacific, you seem to want to create a new religion. Where istead of a cross, you have the flag.

Personally, I find trhis scary.

A flag is piece of fabric essentialy. Whatever it symbolises doesn't change the fact.

You are trying to turn it into something that it is not (ie a religious symbol).

Now, why should we not burn the Bill of Rights or the Constitution, for example? Well, because the original documents do not belong to us, but to the government that owns the museums in which they are kept. To destroy them is to destroy public property. If, on the other hand, I were to purchase a copy of the Bill of Rights or Constitution and then burn it, my rights to do so are perfectly legitimate.

Burning a copy of the Bill of Rights? Now that's just hypocritical.

By the way, important things are kept in the National Archives. If you sweet talk the archivist, he might even let you see Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle. You can't touch it, but you can see it on the rare occasion that he takes it out.

Burning a copy of the Bill of Rights? Now that's just hypocritical.

By the way, important things are kept in the National Archives. If you sweet talk the archivist, he might even let you see Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle. You can't touch it, but you can see it on the rare occasion that he takes it out.

I would care if that was the weapon that really killed Kennedy. ;)

Burning a flag should be allowed. Why does it make such a shock? Because we are a world that revolves around symbols.

Don't believe me? Find a bill that's $20-or higher!-and tear it in half. Go on. Take the cash, and rip it in half. That's right, hold it in your hands, and *scccdritch* tear it.


For all of you who didn't...why? You could just go down to the bank and get a new one. Why didn't you rip it in half?

I doubt many knew that, that is why they wont tear it, here that is a full meal, and I mean FULL, 19 oz. Steak, a couple beers, potato with Sour Cream and Cheese. Most people will gladly take that, except those vegetarians.

I apologize for going off on a tangent, but:

WHAT "hippies burning flags" in New York City? Because I didn't see any last week. In fact, the media buzz has been such that except for the actions of one group, almost all the dissent against the convention has been remarkably peaceful, especially taking the size of the demostrations into account.

I was talking hypothetically.

Although (coming back onto topic) I will second the emotion about hewing to local ordinances about burning anything. That one group that didn't behave, that's what they did, and I was in the area when it happened and was rather unappreciative (especially considering I tend to be a free speech advocate).

I tend to be an advocate FOR government sensorship, but more like a Espionage and Seditions Act during WWI and WWII, not like in China or the USSR where if someone critized the leader/party it was off their head.

You can't touch it, but you can see it on the rare occasion that he takes it out.

I wont even say it... :)

fire is sinful....it's the devils creation

fire is sinful....it's the devils creation

Do ever get the urge to kick your own ass?

Mine's a resounding no. What if I went around pissing on your loved ones graves, then posted the photo's in the news? It's all about respect. Protesters can figure out other ways to display their anger. Here's my reasoning, copied here.

You know, I feel that people have lost touch with morals, values, and respect in general. Ok, so the flag is cloth, just a symbol, blah blah blah. I've heard everything that the yuppie sqawn can spew out of their mouths. There's a reason that respect is paid to our nations flag. The thought of having the freedom to do so should generate patriotism, not stupid and selfish thoughts that you should burn it to gain attention. I served as a Marine for 4 years. I not only served for the president, or my friends and family, but I also served the flag. In a way, that flag was the only thing I had to relate to the concept that I was a Marine who also served for the hopeful greater good of my nation. Yes, the flag is a symbol, that stands for many proud people who served for and under that flag. Many people have given up their old lives just to be able to say that "mundane" pledge of allegience. There's a reason that when we buried my fellow Marine, his family was presented with the flag of the United States of America. It's the symbol that helped shape him into a man. The symbol that he lived and died to help preserve. If you cant display simple respect, then your just damn lazy. Damn people, if nothing else, it's just the right thing to do.
:sigh: how far we have fallen......

RIP CPL Paul C Holter ........................never forget.................

This debate is interesting as the most burnt flag in the world is probably the US flag (that's outside the US).