Interesting UK Daily Mirror Article

by DakotaRed 75 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  DakotaRed

  Abbadon, those are the words of Giap himself from his writings. Not a strawman claim at all. That you choose to ignore them and go about your merry way astounds me and makes me think that if Saddam himself came out and said that he was indeed hiding weaponry in violations of UN resolutions and that Bush has been right along, you would also come out and claim that is only one mans opinion and ignore him too!

  Charlie, on biting you, no thanks. I have a better proposition available. But, thanks for the offer.

  For all of you, like I said to Berten, you just may get your way and keep Saddam in power. Afterall, Europe tried to appease Hitler and let him get out of control too. Why would I expect anything else?
• 

  Simon

  Yes, you are right, we should learn the lesson about Hitler and not just give in to aggressive leaders who obviously want to go to war and dominate other countries.
• 

  Trauma_Hound

  Simon, notice they have yet to come up with something to argue against what Colonel Mike Turner said.
• 

  DakotaRed

  Charlie, notice, you ignore it when we do. If you want to listen to him and give in to terrorist, be my guest. I will listen to former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Colin Powell. I believe his expertise and words have refuted Turner many times over.
• 

  Simon

  People in current positions always have a vested interest IMHO.

  Old Collin is on a low credibility with "the world" after his poor efforts at the earth summit.
• 

  Shutterbug

  Old Collin is on a low credibility with "the world" after his poor efforts at the earth summit

  It should be pointed out, "the world" doesn't vote here in the United States. Old Colin is doing just fine here, thank you. Bug
• 

  Simon

  It should be pointed out that the USA is just one country in the world. The planet has a higher importance than one single country.
• 

  searchfothetruth

  Another interesting article in the Mirror today: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12742779&method=full&siteid=50143

  PUSHED INTO WAR BY LIARS AND CHEATS.

  It was a rare moment of truth in the shabby charade which is plunging the world into war.

  Suddenly President Bush's mask slipped. The pretense that he is a great statesman and the saviour of international freedom was laid bare.

  He was revealed as a petulant little man, sick of having to wait before sending his massive forces into Iraq, his patience with pretending to listen to other nations totally exhausted.

  Yesterdays trip to the Azores was always going to be a farce. Always going to leave the world a fingertip away from war. The meeting between the leaders of America, the UK and Spain lasted an hour. No time for discussion but plenty of time to nod agreement with the president.

  There is no longer any doubt that this rush to military action is one of the most sordid episodes since the Second World War. Mr Bush is only interested in blitzing Iraq.

  What makes it so much more terrible for the people of Britain is that our government is being dragged in and plumbing disgraceful depths to justify involvement.

  The concerted attack on France is shameful and degrading. Cabinet ministers yesterday toured TV and radio stations to condemn President Chirac and accuse the French of being responsible for war.

  This is hypocrisy run riot and double-think of scandalous proportions. You expect it from newspapers with no principles or morality, but we are entitled to something better from Tony Blairs government.

  Responsibility for the coming conflagration lies four-square on America's shoulders. Mr Bush is committed to war amd Mr blair is determined to support him. The President and his supporters in the British cabinet have a peculiar view of what UN backing entails. To them, it means meekly accepting whatever the White house says.

  It is that view which threatens the future of the United Nations. It is ludicrous to suggest that France's insistence on a peaceful solution is an act of war.

  Tony Blair still fails to understand that one reason the British are so opposed to this war and so cynical about the motives for it is that we are being treated like idiots.

  We don't want fake dossiers of 'evidence'. We don't want lies about the dangers we face. We don't want attacks on people and countries who prefer peace to war. We don't want farcical summits whose only aim is to speed the rush to military action.

  It is clear that war is only hours away. When it starts, we will be very clear about who is responsible.
• 

  Abaddon

  Abbadon, those are the words of Giap himself from his writings. Not a strawman claim at all. Oh dakota, I didn't say that. So you just made a strawman attack on me. Which is a polite way of saying LIAR. I said; "unless you can prove that more people died due to people protesting and the war continuing as compared to the government ignoring the protestors and the war contiuning, your arguement is just unfounded opinion" Look, just because someone uses the phrase 'strawman' in a reponse to your twigs, I mean posts, doen't mean you can just throw it back... it's like, oh, I don't know, the USA trying to link Iraq with 911 just by mentioning them in the same sentence. It has to be true to count. If you don't know what a strawman attack is, ask me. "That you choose to ignore them and go about your merry way astounds me and makes me think that if Saddam himself came out and said that he was indeed hiding weaponry in violations of UN resolutions and that Bush has been right along, you would also come out and claim that is only one mans opinion and ignore him too!" Now you're being stupid. There's something wrong with the start of that sentence, can't put my finger on it... AND STILL YOU RUN AWAY FROM THE ARGUEMENTS YOU CAN'T WIN. Don't you think people notice that? Or do you think everyones dumb?
• 

  DakotaRed

  Abbadon, those are the words of Giap himself from his writings. Not a strawman claim at all. Oh dakota, I didn't say that. So you just made a strawman attack on me. Which is a polite way of saying LIAR. I said; "unless you can prove that more people died due to people protesting and the war continuing as compared to the government ignoring the protestors and the war contiuning, your arguement is just unfounded opinion"

  Do the simple math. He was going to surrender in 1968 after he was defeated in Tet of 68. He claimed that after seeing the protests in US and hearing Walter Cronkite say he was victorious in Tet of 68, he changed his mind and held on and played the war to the American public.

  Since he was wanting to surrender in 1968, it would appear that the US was winning the war, just as General Westmoreland said. Why should the US abandon a war they were winning when they were there to keep the South Vietnamese free? You can spin doctor it any way you wish, the words are written and public knowledge, if you care to seek and read them.

  If he had surrenderd at the time he was planning to, it would have been over and the South Vietnamese would still be free.

  American deaths at the time of Tet of 68 were somewhere around 10 to 15,000. When it finally ended in 1973, they were 58,000.

  No matter the spin you wish to put on it, you have the Commanding General of the North Vietnamese Army saying he decided not to surrender in 1968 and held out until it was stalemate in 1973 due to seeing so many protests in the US. All you need do is go to your public library and read his writings for yourself.