by William Penwell 31 Replies latest social current
have you heard of the fact that the US was targeting civilians in WWII, the korean war, vietnam, etc.? not accidentially but willingly!
btw, when did i say that i condoned every action the u.s. has ever taken? two wrongs dont make a right, and nothing the u.s. has done in the past justifies the wtc slaughter, or any other terrorist attack. again, youre not going to suck me into your sick logic.
aa
maybe "good" reason has a different meaning than what i thought...i don't consider terrorist attacks as something good. so how about strong reason? in any case i do not justify the WTC attack and i never did.
I commend you on your inability to hate. most people would not be so rational.
also if i am wrong with assuming that you support US foreign politics than i gladly apologize.
also if i am wrong with assuming that you support US foreign politics than i gladly apologize.
just to futher answer that, no i dont support everything our government does, and i dont support all foreign policies blanketly. i think this stigma gets put on bush supporters, that we robotically follow our leader, and accept everything that comes from his mouth as 100% true, and the right thing to do. while i do happen to agree with our stance on regime change in iraq, i dont agree with everything we do. in fact, i think we handled the iraq situation poorly in many aspects, and its led to worldwide opposition to a neccesary (my opinion) operation.
aa
The reason why Bush was opposed was that his arguments were weak and the rest of the civilized world was not buying it. It seems that he was a little to much in a hurry and to arrogant to listen to others point of view. He just wanted to go to go to war without allowing the peace process more time. I think he will regret his hasty decision in the end.
Will
The reason why Bush was opposed was that his arguments were weak and the rest of the civilized world was not buying it.
id bet that if france, china, and russia didnt have such a signifcant stake in iraqs oil, they wouldnt have put up their original opposition to war (considering they did unanimously vote for 1441, which called for "serious consequences"......maybe they thought "serious consequences" just meant a tongue lashing?)......and if we wouldnt have gotten their staunch opposition early on, the rest of the civilized world wouldve simply agreed on this. it was a snowball, and now its too far out of control to gain world support. the support will be there when wmd are found though, i predict......many tunes will change.
aa
dubla,
... and now its too far out of control to gain world support. the support will be there when wmd are found though, i predict......many tunes will change.
I'm sure they will. I'm sure there was some hope that Saddam would launch a few during the first lull, so that we'd have an excuse to use ours. (Like the one Jeb let Dubya try out in Florida the other day.)
But if we find them now that we've contaminated the scene of the crime, won't most people just assume we planted them there, the same way the US planted the evidence for the Vietnam conflict for the Gulf of Tonkin "attack" or the way Hitler planted the evidence for a supposed attack by Poland?
You can't put it past the US, since we've admitted doing it in Central America, and might have even done it in Iraq by assigning Iranian chemical weapons to the Iraqis. Also I understand now that we have sat by and said nothing while monitoring the Kurds chemical weapons tests.
Gamaliel
WAR IS NOT CIVILIZED.
Hey there brother Jeb can I blow up a little ol' bomb in yur back yard???
Refusing to take action because of fear of terrorist reataliation means the terrorists have already won.
Funky, I agree with Gamaliel - a tough call. I presume that you mean physical action? I may have this wrong, if so forgive me.
You have seen first hand what costs have to be paid when Governments chose the path of physical action against terrorist groups. Eventually the issues become buried in bodies and people forget what caused the blood to rise and why they are shooting people dead whose children then come back to haunt them. I am not against the use of force in these situations but it should be and dare I use the phrase, the final solution. I am by no means convinced that this stage, regardless of UN Resolution 1441 had been reached before weapons were primed and fired. I write as a person involved in an airplane hijack many years ago and who watched as Palestinians slaughtered an completely innocent man in front of my eyes.
At the time I was emotionally entrenched for understandable reasons in a stance that relished retaliation against the PLO who undoubtedly funded this group. As time passed and I saw that armed action only served to give birth to a generation of willing martyrs I began to see that the our children always pick up the horror of our errors.
Terrorists and terrorist States cannot survive without certain aims and resources. 1) an ideology. 2) Youth. 3) Money. Educate the young people to see that the gun is a short term solution to long-term problems and that while slower politics and social evolution do work. Seize the billions of dollars the feed and fuel the terrorists, break up their international drug rings, seize and sell their property, give their cash back to the community that gave birth to the terrorists in the form of education, sports activities, art galleries, theatres, music halls that work to give people pride in their nation.
Empower the Governments to freeze the assets, seize and sell the property, destroy the drug industry that fuels terrorrism all over the world and use this huge amount of money to attack the problem from less jingoistic viewpoints. Education of people on the ground, political compromise, coupled with bloodless means of attacking the problem will always be the superior method in the long-term.
For example, I would like to see President Bush, the self-proclaimed enemy of 'terrorism everywhere' seize the funds that stream from the Irish in the US that fuel the terror in the Republic of Ireland. Rather than using military personel to train the armies in places like Columbia, Peru, Indonesia, and many parts of Africa in the methods of terrorism, that he learns to respect the 'democratic process' that he seems so fond of holding aloft like a Roman Eagle.
Another example is in the last Gulf War when Saddam deliberately ordered the release of oil, some twenty times larger than the Exron disaster into the Gulf. It cost 700 million to clean up, much of this provided by Western tax-payer money. Terrorist money should have footed the bill.
I am an unapologectic idealist, and yet I think that the 'ideals' of the faceless beaurocrats who set the true agendas in what can be laughingly referred to as US Foreign Policy truly stink!
Best regards - HS
id bet that if france, china, and russia didnt have such a signifcant stake in iraqs oil, they wouldnt have put up their original opposition to war
absolutely right.
this whole conflict shows how evil politics really is. on one hand you have bush and his bastards lying and decieving people with faked documents, faked sattelite pictures, etc.etc. pretending he want this war to liberate the iraqis, to bring peace to the area and to protect the US.....on the other hand you have chirac (a known criminal), putin (chechnya says it all), china (no comment needed) and schroeder (who was against the war only so he could win his election).
fucking liars and hypocrates for whom a human life counts absolutley nothing. if there would be a god he would put all of them on one island and than drop one of bush's new super bombs on them.
