Home
TheSinner.net
Pro-war, if you like.
30 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Pro-war, if you like.
by Zombie Sheep on Sat Feb 15, 2003 12:27 am
What,can i ask is wrong with supporting a war on iraq? not that im suggesting thats what people around here are saying. in general terms, it appears to be frowned on,as something that maybe shouldnt be done. ive looked at what evidence is available and decided that we should take out saddam before he takes out us. maybe if those who supported war actually spoke up, we might end up doing what i believe is the correct thing to do.
-
Zombie Sheep
Re:
by Saki on Sat Feb 15, 2003 10:11 pm
There are lots of issues here.
Firstly, I don't think that there is anything wrong with people who've thought through the issues and decided that they are in favour of war. Although I'm very much against war, one of my closest friends is pro-war but argues his case in such a way that I very much respect his opinion.
What it comes down to, for many anti-war people, is that many pro-war types seem to be pro-war not for any particularly rational reasons but simply as a reaction against what they perceive to be the "socialist" anti-war movement. It irritates me as a an anti-war campaigner that we're continually painted as being "irrational" because we disagree with war when the people making this claims are acting on irrational social prejudice. I'm not afraid to put it this strongly: what the stigma against pro-war students is about is that many of them (not all!) are pro-war because of class and broad political agenda rather than out of sincere conviction. Now, I'd never deny that the opposite is true too - there are socialists who join the anti-war movement because they want to react against what they see as being a conservative/right-wing pro-war movement.
I don't think this is how the issue should be seen at all. It's a question like any other that should be debated on its own merits and not linked with matters to do with class/political affiliations generally, but the fact that that's not the case helps to explain the stigma against pro-war students that you ask about.
Firstly, I don't think that there is anything wrong with people who've thought through the issues and decided that they are in favour of war. Although I'm very much against war, one of my closest friends is pro-war but argues his case in such a way that I very much respect his opinion.
What it comes down to, for many anti-war people, is that many pro-war types seem to be pro-war not for any particularly rational reasons but simply as a reaction against what they perceive to be the "socialist" anti-war movement. It irritates me as a an anti-war campaigner that we're continually painted as being "irrational" because we disagree with war when the people making this claims are acting on irrational social prejudice. I'm not afraid to put it this strongly: what the stigma against pro-war students is about is that many of them (not all!) are pro-war because of class and broad political agenda rather than out of sincere conviction. Now, I'd never deny that the opposite is true too - there are socialists who join the anti-war movement because they want to react against what they see as being a conservative/right-wing pro-war movement.
I don't think this is how the issue should be seen at all. It's a question like any other that should be debated on its own merits and not linked with matters to do with class/political affiliations generally, but the fact that that's not the case helps to explain the stigma against pro-war students that you ask about.
-
Saki
- Posts: 164
- Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 12:15 pm
Re:
by Miss Maryland on Mon Feb 17, 2003 9:49 am
I am pro-war, but I am too tired and lazy to type an explanation why. It does get annoying when the opposition tends to be quite pushy with forcing their opinion on me. Mine is more or less what Zombie Sheep just said. It is interesting, however, that some of the most annoying and relentless crusaders against war often don't really know what going on. Note the word "some". At least, that's how it is where I go to school. It seems like many people who go to protests these days do it because it is, "cool," and because they want to "meet chicks."
-
Miss Maryland
Re:
by goon on Mon Feb 17, 2003 9:49 am
How come the Us are so sure that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction?Cause they were the ones selling them ,when Iraq was on war with Iran.The Us,Uk must check their own weapons and try to deminish them and then check the others.Who created Bin Laden?Us.How odd that him too ,they gave him weapons and money when he was fighting the Russians.
Everything comes to this.Pretty simple.
Everything comes to this.Pretty simple.
-
goon
Re:
by Oddball on Mon Feb 17, 2003 3:01 pm
[s]Unregisted User goon wrote on 16:53, 16th Feb 2003:
How come the Us are so sure that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction?Cause they were the ones selling them ,when Iraq was on war with Iran.The Us,Uk must check their own weapons and try to deminish them and then check the others.Who created Bin Laden?Us.How odd that him too ,they gave him weapons and money when he was fighting the Russians.
Everything comes to this.Pretty simple.
I will be a little blunt here, the fact that the US and UK supplied the weapons does make the problem of their existence go away. It certainly means that the allied powers have a good idea of what needs to be disarmed. Given Saddam's willingness to use his chemical arsenal it does seem prudent to view him as a threat.
Just because we supplied him and once supported Saddam, does not mean that we cannot take action against him. At the time it made some sense to support Saddam, however circumstances have changed and now he poses a threat. Frankly reducing our stocks of WMDs will have no effect upon Saddam or Osama, so it would be pointless, they do at least act as a deterant.
Supporting the Afghan resistance against the Soviet Union was a very sensible move at the time, we were in a cold war against the Soviet regime. Before the cold war we were allied to Russia against Germany. Alliances change, there is nothing new or dishonourable in this.
In conclusion there is little point in moralising about what has been done, it is more a case of worrying about what to do now. Saddam is a Clear and Present Danger, and he may require removal.
How come the Us are so sure that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction?Cause they were the ones selling them ,when Iraq was on war with Iran.The Us,Uk must check their own weapons and try to deminish them and then check the others.Who created Bin Laden?Us.How odd that him too ,they gave him weapons and money when he was fighting the Russians.
Everything comes to this.Pretty simple.
I will be a little blunt here, the fact that the US and UK supplied the weapons does make the problem of their existence go away. It certainly means that the allied powers have a good idea of what needs to be disarmed. Given Saddam's willingness to use his chemical arsenal it does seem prudent to view him as a threat.
Just because we supplied him and once supported Saddam, does not mean that we cannot take action against him. At the time it made some sense to support Saddam, however circumstances have changed and now he poses a threat. Frankly reducing our stocks of WMDs will have no effect upon Saddam or Osama, so it would be pointless, they do at least act as a deterant.
Supporting the Afghan resistance against the Soviet Union was a very sensible move at the time, we were in a cold war against the Soviet regime. Before the cold war we were allied to Russia against Germany. Alliances change, there is nothing new or dishonourable in this.
In conclusion there is little point in moralising about what has been done, it is more a case of worrying about what to do now. Saddam is a Clear and Present Danger, and he may require removal.
-
Oddball
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:54 pm
Re:
by Hmmm on Mon Feb 17, 2003 4:58 pm
[s]Saki wrote on 22:11, 15th Feb 2003:
What it comes down to, for many anti-war people, is that many pro-war types seem to be pro-war not for any particularly rational reasons...
So do many anti-war people, especailly those interviewed at the rally on Saturday:
"Um, yeah, I don't think there should be a war cos everyone hates America and no one hates Britain, um yeah".
Maybe someone should politey ew=quire as to what the Iraqi people themselves think. Many of those that now live in Britain seem to be saying thanks for being anti-war but that really won't help as more will continue to die if no action is taken.
Wasn't Iraq a democratic country a few decades ago? (50's I think) In which case removing Saddam wouldn't result in the UK and the US hanging about so long afterwards.
What it comes down to, for many anti-war people, is that many pro-war types seem to be pro-war not for any particularly rational reasons...
So do many anti-war people, especailly those interviewed at the rally on Saturday:
"Um, yeah, I don't think there should be a war cos everyone hates America and no one hates Britain, um yeah".
Maybe someone should politey ew=quire as to what the Iraqi people themselves think. Many of those that now live in Britain seem to be saying thanks for being anti-war but that really won't help as more will continue to die if no action is taken.
Wasn't Iraq a democratic country a few decades ago? (50's I think) In which case removing Saddam wouldn't result in the UK and the US hanging about so long afterwards.
-
Hmmm
Re:
by Little she-bear on Mon Feb 17, 2003 5:31 pm
[s]Unregisted User Miss Maryland wrote on 04:38, 16th Feb 2003:It does get annoying when the opposition tends to be quite pushy with forcing their opinion on me.
It's not the anti-war movement's responsibilty to make sure there's an opposition to their views, that's up to the pro-war camp. It's not our fault if there isn't a balance in the debate. If you want people to hear the reasons for your own stance you've got to get out there and make yourself heard. It's no use saying, "oh, I'm pro-war but I'm too lazy to say why" and then start bitching about the people who do articulate their case.
It's not the anti-war movement's responsibilty to make sure there's an opposition to their views, that's up to the pro-war camp. It's not our fault if there isn't a balance in the debate. If you want people to hear the reasons for your own stance you've got to get out there and make yourself heard. It's no use saying, "oh, I'm pro-war but I'm too lazy to say why" and then start bitching about the people who do articulate their case.
-
Little she-bear
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2002 5:35 pm
Re:
by David Bean on Mon Feb 17, 2003 6:43 pm
The point is, so many members of the anti-war camp seem to view their position as being correct almost by necessity, so that anyone who disagrees with them is so obviously wrong that they must be suffering from some kind of mental instability. They often also seem to take offence at anyone disagreeing with them, and resort to insults - witness the two floor speakers in the debate last Thursday, one of whom called myself and the other two Proposition speakers arrogant racists (arrogant because Lee dared to suggest that people might consider voting according to how the main speeches went and not their own preconceptions, and racists because, well, what better way to attack someone who disagrees with you than to cry 'racist'?), and the other said that Paul and I were a disgrace to the IR department (which he dressed up by saying that we needed to prove x, y and z, to which my reply should have been bugger off, that was my speech, not yours). That anyone should use such tactics as those in what was supposed to be an entertaining and thought-provoking debate, frankly beggars belief, and they both struck me as a disgrace to the cause they were purporting to represent.
Notice that the better anti-war comments, however, were of an entirely different character: they were sincere, thoughtful and not at all personal; they're the kind of people I'd like to have on my side in an argument, not the hectorers. I suppose that's what happens when one side of an argument becomes conventional wisdom - it's a curse as well as a blessing.
Notice that the better anti-war comments, however, were of an entirely different character: they were sincere, thoughtful and not at all personal; they're the kind of people I'd like to have on my side in an argument, not the hectorers. I suppose that's what happens when one side of an argument becomes conventional wisdom - it's a curse as well as a blessing.
Psalm 91:7
-
David Bean
- Posts: 3053
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am
Re:
by Miss Maryland on Mon Feb 17, 2003 10:18 pm
[s]Little she-bear wrote on 17:31, 17th Feb 2003:
[s]Unregisted User Miss Maryland wrote on 04:38, 16th Feb 2003:[i]It does get annoying when the opposition tends to be quite pushy with forcing their opinion on me.
It's not the anti-war movement's responsibilty to make sure there's an opposition to their views, that's up to the pro-war camp. It's not our fault if there isn't a balance in the debate. If you want people to hear the reasons for your own stance you've got to get out there and make yourself heard. It's no use saying, "oh, I'm pro-war but I'm too lazy to say why" and then start bitching about the people who do articulate their case.
[/i]
If you read my post, you would have noticed that I was talking about the anti-war movent at my school, not the whole anti-war movement in general. And yes, those people do articuate their case, they just don't know what they are talking about. I know this because I know who the stupid people are at my school. There are stupid people against war, just like there are stupid people for war. However, since very few people at my school seem to be pro-war, it can be deducted that most of the stupid people at my school are anti-war. Get it?
As for telling those people how I feel, they're too bigoted to listen. And hey, I am NOT talking about you guys. So please don't be offended!
[s]Unregisted User Miss Maryland wrote on 04:38, 16th Feb 2003:[i]It does get annoying when the opposition tends to be quite pushy with forcing their opinion on me.
It's not the anti-war movement's responsibilty to make sure there's an opposition to their views, that's up to the pro-war camp. It's not our fault if there isn't a balance in the debate. If you want people to hear the reasons for your own stance you've got to get out there and make yourself heard. It's no use saying, "oh, I'm pro-war but I'm too lazy to say why" and then start bitching about the people who do articulate their case.
[/i]
If you read my post, you would have noticed that I was talking about the anti-war movent at my school, not the whole anti-war movement in general. And yes, those people do articuate their case, they just don't know what they are talking about. I know this because I know who the stupid people are at my school. There are stupid people against war, just like there are stupid people for war. However, since very few people at my school seem to be pro-war, it can be deducted that most of the stupid people at my school are anti-war. Get it?
As for telling those people how I feel, they're too bigoted to listen. And hey, I am NOT talking about you guys. So please don't be offended!
-
Miss Maryland
Re:
by immunodiffusion on Mon Feb 17, 2003 10:34 pm
[s]Unregisted User Miss Maryland wrote on 20:02, 17th Feb 2003:
If you read my post, you would have noticed that I was talking about the anti-war movent at my school, not the whole anti-war movement in general
Well, the point applied just as well whether it was generalised to the whole population or just applied to your school - if you are "too lazy" to express your own views, whether just within your school or on a wider level, you can't complain that there is a lack of public pro-war feeling
However, since very few people at my school seem to be pro-war, it can be deducted that most of the stupid people at my school are anti-war. Get it?
No, I don't get it. Why would "stupid people" be unevenly distributed in the anti-war movement? If for example 5% of your university is composed of people you describe as "stupid", then presumably 5% of those who are pro-war are "stupid" and 5% of those who are anti-war are "stupid". The fact that there are more anti-war than pro-war people does, I suppose mean there are a greater raw number of anti-war "stupid" people, but these are presumably balanced by a greater number of non-stupid people in the anti-war movement, meaning that if you met a anti-war person, they would be just as likely to be "stupid" as if you met a pro-war person.
It all rather depends on what you mean by "stupid" though. If by "stupid" you mean people who disagree with your opinions or who you don't like, then you will find a greater proportion of these in the anti-war movement, as you are pro-war. However, that would be a purely subjective test, people in the anti-war movement would be more likely to find pro-war people were "stupid".
If you read my post, you would have noticed that I was talking about the anti-war movent at my school, not the whole anti-war movement in general
Well, the point applied just as well whether it was generalised to the whole population or just applied to your school - if you are "too lazy" to express your own views, whether just within your school or on a wider level, you can't complain that there is a lack of public pro-war feeling
However, since very few people at my school seem to be pro-war, it can be deducted that most of the stupid people at my school are anti-war. Get it?
No, I don't get it. Why would "stupid people" be unevenly distributed in the anti-war movement? If for example 5% of your university is composed of people you describe as "stupid", then presumably 5% of those who are pro-war are "stupid" and 5% of those who are anti-war are "stupid". The fact that there are more anti-war than pro-war people does, I suppose mean there are a greater raw number of anti-war "stupid" people, but these are presumably balanced by a greater number of non-stupid people in the anti-war movement, meaning that if you met a anti-war person, they would be just as likely to be "stupid" as if you met a pro-war person.
It all rather depends on what you mean by "stupid" though. If by "stupid" you mean people who disagree with your opinions or who you don't like, then you will find a greater proportion of these in the anti-war movement, as you are pro-war. However, that would be a purely subjective test, people in the anti-war movement would be more likely to find pro-war people were "stupid".
-
immunodiffusion
- Posts: 312
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am
Re:
by Miss Maryland on Tue Feb 18, 2003 8:43 am
[s]immunodiffusion wrote on 22:34, 17th Feb 2003:
[i]
Well, the point applied just as well whether it was generalised to the whole population or just applied to your school - if you are "too lazy" to express your own views, whether just within your school or on a wider level, you can't complain that there is a lack of public pro-war feeling[i]
Maybe I was too lazy to write my opinion at midnight. I was half asleep.
[i]
The fact that there are more anti-war than pro-war people does, I suppose mean there are a greater raw number of anti-war "stupid" people, but these are presumably balanced by a greater number of non-stupid people in the anti-war movement, meaning that if you met a anti-war person, they would be just as likely to be "stupid" as if you met a pro-war person.
[i]
It all rather depends on what you mean by "stupid" though. If by "stupid" you mean people who disagree with your opinions or who you don't like, then you will find a greater proportion of these in the anti-war movement, as you are pro-war. However, that would be a purely subjective test, people in the anti-war movement would be more likely to find pro-war people were "stupid".
Yeah yeah pro-war can be stupid. Of course they can. And I never said that all anti-war people were stupid. Just some. And I never said that pro-war people are never stupid.
When it comes to people who regard me with disrespect on account of my opinions, they generally are stupid (though not for that reason). Haven't you ever noticed that most intelligent, diplomatically savvy people don't persecute others on account of opinions? Besides, it's a stupid thing to do. You can't force your opinions on people, they have minds of their own.
Here is a theoretical argument:
In most cases (where I live at least), the liberal movement can be much more forceful than its conservative counterpart. Why? Because at the basis of liberalism is the desire to change things for the better. A "liberal" is more likely to confront what he or she thinks should be changed. At the basis of conservatism, is the desire for things to stay the same. A Conservative does not desire confrontation, and, theoretically, is not going to challenge someone with different beliefs.
note: I am not trying to badmouth "liberals". The way I see it, there is no "bad" side to be on, or "wrong" side to be on. There are no "bad" political parties- just bad politicians. This is also a theory. Just a theory. So please don't kill me in my sleep.
[i]
Well, the point applied just as well whether it was generalised to the whole population or just applied to your school - if you are "too lazy" to express your own views, whether just within your school or on a wider level, you can't complain that there is a lack of public pro-war feeling[i]
Maybe I was too lazy to write my opinion at midnight. I was half asleep.
[i]
The fact that there are more anti-war than pro-war people does, I suppose mean there are a greater raw number of anti-war "stupid" people, but these are presumably balanced by a greater number of non-stupid people in the anti-war movement, meaning that if you met a anti-war person, they would be just as likely to be "stupid" as if you met a pro-war person.
[i]
It all rather depends on what you mean by "stupid" though. If by "stupid" you mean people who disagree with your opinions or who you don't like, then you will find a greater proportion of these in the anti-war movement, as you are pro-war. However, that would be a purely subjective test, people in the anti-war movement would be more likely to find pro-war people were "stupid".
Yeah yeah pro-war can be stupid. Of course they can. And I never said that all anti-war people were stupid. Just some. And I never said that pro-war people are never stupid.
When it comes to people who regard me with disrespect on account of my opinions, they generally are stupid (though not for that reason). Haven't you ever noticed that most intelligent, diplomatically savvy people don't persecute others on account of opinions? Besides, it's a stupid thing to do. You can't force your opinions on people, they have minds of their own.
Here is a theoretical argument:
In most cases (where I live at least), the liberal movement can be much more forceful than its conservative counterpart. Why? Because at the basis of liberalism is the desire to change things for the better. A "liberal" is more likely to confront what he or she thinks should be changed. At the basis of conservatism, is the desire for things to stay the same. A Conservative does not desire confrontation, and, theoretically, is not going to challenge someone with different beliefs.
note: I am not trying to badmouth "liberals". The way I see it, there is no "bad" side to be on, or "wrong" side to be on. There are no "bad" political parties- just bad politicians. This is also a theory. Just a theory. So please don't kill me in my sleep.
-
Miss Maryland
Re:
by Hmmm on Tue Feb 18, 2003 8:43 am
More anti-war people are just stupuid which is a shame as those anti-war people with brains and good opinions now lack credibility. Due the sheer number of people that are anti-war it has become the popular and trendy way to think, resulting in many on your side being complete imbeciles.
And before you start about the one million protestors last Saturday, where were the other 58 million British people? And no, we didn't all have something better to do.
And before you start about the one million protestors last Saturday, where were the other 58 million British people? And no, we didn't all have something better to do.
-
Hmmm
Re:
by Saki on Tue Feb 18, 2003 11:25 am
[s]David Bean wrote on 18:43, 17th Feb 2003:
The point is, so many members of the anti-war camp seem to view their position as being correct almost by necessity, so that anyone who disagrees with them is so obviously wrong that they must be suffering from some kind of mental instability. They often also seem to take offence at anyone disagreeing with them, and resort to insults
Well, yes. I would agree entirely with this, but as I said in my first post here I think that the divisions on this issue _are_ bound up with class divisions and political stance too. I'm anti-war for various rational reasons that I gave in my speech in the debate. There are many anti-war people who are anti-war because they're anti-capitalist or anti-American or anti-new-labour. There are plenty of other issues going on here. And there is an awful lot of irrationality going on on _both_ sides. I didn't appreciate the insults hurled at the proposition speakers in the debate, but neither did I appreciate the implication that anti-war people are all naive peacniks who hadn't thought the issues through. I've thought this through, I've done my research, and I feel that the balance of the argument lies with the anti-war camp. I recognise that there's also a rational argument pro-war and I respect those who put it forward but there are also irrational "you're all pierced, denim-shirt-clad, cannabis smoking, peaceniks" pro-war typs that I _don't_ respect!
The point is, so many members of the anti-war camp seem to view their position as being correct almost by necessity, so that anyone who disagrees with them is so obviously wrong that they must be suffering from some kind of mental instability. They often also seem to take offence at anyone disagreeing with them, and resort to insults
Well, yes. I would agree entirely with this, but as I said in my first post here I think that the divisions on this issue _are_ bound up with class divisions and political stance too. I'm anti-war for various rational reasons that I gave in my speech in the debate. There are many anti-war people who are anti-war because they're anti-capitalist or anti-American or anti-new-labour. There are plenty of other issues going on here. And there is an awful lot of irrationality going on on _both_ sides. I didn't appreciate the insults hurled at the proposition speakers in the debate, but neither did I appreciate the implication that anti-war people are all naive peacniks who hadn't thought the issues through. I've thought this through, I've done my research, and I feel that the balance of the argument lies with the anti-war camp. I recognise that there's also a rational argument pro-war and I respect those who put it forward but there are also irrational "you're all pierced, denim-shirt-clad, cannabis smoking, peaceniks" pro-war typs that I _don't_ respect!
-
Saki
- Posts: 164
- Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 12:15 pm
Re:
by Saki on Tue Feb 18, 2003 11:28 am
[s]Unregisted User Hmmm wrote on 14:00, 17th Feb 2003:
[s]Saki wrote on 22:11, 15th Feb 2003:[i]
What it comes down to, for many anti-war people, is that many pro-war types seem to be pro-war not for any particularly rational reasons...
So do many anti-war people, especailly those interviewed at the rally on Saturday:
"Um, yeah, I don't think there should be a war cos everyone hates America and no one hates Britain, um yeah".
Maybe someone should politey ew=quire as to what the Iraqi people themselves think. Many of those that now live in Britain seem to be saying thanks for being anti-war but that really won't help as more will continue to die if no action is taken.
Wasn't Iraq a democratic country a few decades ago? (50's I think) In which case removing Saddam wouldn't result in the UK and the US hanging about so long afterwards.
[/i]
You've quoted me completely out of context. Reread my post & you'll see that I acknowledged that anti-war people can be just as irrational. And as for the democracy thing... look at the article that I posted in another thread on US plans for Iraq. It won't be a democracy.
[s]Saki wrote on 22:11, 15th Feb 2003:[i]
What it comes down to, for many anti-war people, is that many pro-war types seem to be pro-war not for any particularly rational reasons...
So do many anti-war people, especailly those interviewed at the rally on Saturday:
"Um, yeah, I don't think there should be a war cos everyone hates America and no one hates Britain, um yeah".
Maybe someone should politey ew=quire as to what the Iraqi people themselves think. Many of those that now live in Britain seem to be saying thanks for being anti-war but that really won't help as more will continue to die if no action is taken.
Wasn't Iraq a democratic country a few decades ago? (50's I think) In which case removing Saddam wouldn't result in the UK and the US hanging about so long afterwards.
[/i]
You've quoted me completely out of context. Reread my post & you'll see that I acknowledged that anti-war people can be just as irrational. And as for the democracy thing... look at the article that I posted in another thread on US plans for Iraq. It won't be a democracy.
-
Saki
- Posts: 164
- Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 12:15 pm
Pro-War
by Bob on Tue Mar 11, 2003 10:03 am
I think that the President has a good case to go to war. I can only see one reason to be anti-war, God forbid some innocent lives are lost. But it is not like our troops are intentionally aiming for the civilians, it is not their mission or desire to shoot them. If we leave Sadaam in power he will still continue to torture and kill alot more than what will be lost in war, plus the risk of loosing American lives in chemical warfare.
-
Bob
Re:
by Amaunet on Tue Mar 11, 2003 12:35 pm
If we go to war, then it wont be an
easy way- it will be a long and bloody battle, where, we- the supposed good guys, end up inflicting a reign of terror on the Iraquis. Surely, then that makes us little more than terrorists that Bush jr is trying so hard to rid the world of?
But, on the plus side, it would mean that little bush could go to his daddy and tell him that he has completed what his father couldnt- surely a crowning moment in the Bush History?
easy way- it will be a long and bloody battle, where, we- the supposed good guys, end up inflicting a reign of terror on the Iraquis. Surely, then that makes us little more than terrorists that Bush jr is trying so hard to rid the world of?
But, on the plus side, it would mean that little bush could go to his daddy and tell him that he has completed what his father couldnt- surely a crowning moment in the Bush History?
"You should be kissed, and often, and by someone who knows how"
Gone with the Wind
Gone with the Wind
-
Amaunet
- Posts: 567
- Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2003 5:56 pm
Re:
by cberry on Tue Mar 11, 2003 1:14 pm
“Surely, then that makes us little more than terrorists…”
Yet another person throwing around the title of terrorist. Post September 11th, causes around the world have called this group and that person a terrorist. Israel is a terrorist state. Russians in Chechnya are terrorists. Bush as a terrorist. Even the right confuses issues sometimes, calling regular front-line Taliban soldiers terrorists. Let’s clarify something here. (Quoted from www.webster.com)
Terrorism: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.
Yet another person throwing around the title of terrorist. Post September 11th, causes around the world have called this group and that person a terrorist. Israel is a terrorist state. Russians in Chechnya are terrorists. Bush as a terrorist. Even the right confuses issues sometimes, calling regular front-line Taliban soldiers terrorists. Let’s clarify something here. (Quoted from www.webster.com)
Terrorism: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.
-
cberry
- Posts: 160
- Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2003 9:37 pm
30 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Return to The Sinner's Main Board
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests