Voyuerism
11-10-2004, 15:44
1. Had Afghanistan offered Bin Laden in return for proof that he was responsible for attacks, extraditing him freely for trial by the US. Would you still be for the war in Afghanistan?
2. Had Saddam Hussein offered complete withdraw from Kuwait in return for the UN to review the Arab-Israeli conflict, would you have been for the first Gulf War?
*If you answered "yes" to either of these, you are lying. There was no movement for war in Afghanistan prior to Sept. 11, there was no movement for war in Iraq prior to Kuwait invasion nor after until the United States declared it wrong. There was no push for an Iraqi war the second time until Bush said they were a threat. People bought the government propaganda in both cases and hopped on the bandwagon preaching songs of war. So why do you follow them now?
Both alternatives offered above seem like plausible and possible alternatives that should be considered right? Yah, but they never happened.
OR DID THEY?:
http://www.sfbg.com/gulfwar/022091.html
http://www.j-n-v.org/AW_briefings/ARROW_briefing004.htm
They were both alternatives to the war that the government and the media failed to report. Would the Taliban or Saddam have kept their word? We don't know because the United States refused to listen or try to deal, and instead rushed to war.
:sniper:
We allowed the Northern Alliance to regain control of Afghanistan. Here is a group of opium warlords who devastated that country through public rapings, assassinations, and civil war; violating every civil right known to man. They devastated that country for 20 years. And now the US allows them to regain control?
We now know Saddam had no WMD's nor was wanting any. What's that you say? He had intentions? I'm sorry to point this out, but he also had 3 billion dollars in American cash lying around his palaces. Anybody in the world could get an arsenal of WMD's for 50 million dollars. He didn't have them because he didn't need them, the UN was going to prevent any country from Iraqi invasion. Well, except for the US.
So he wasn't a threat. But he abused his people right? Another government assertion that you eat up. Unfortunately, there are civil rights abuses in Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Somalia, Tujikistan, Rwanda, and our own allies Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Israel, Indonesia, Afghanistan (now), and ourselves. Are you for invading all of them too, and re-invading Afghanistan?
So what justification was there then, Mr. Knowitall Voyuerism?
Let me spell it out for you: O-I-L and the ease of getting it. Iraq was an easy target that appeared to possess little resistance (at the time) of the bunch of countries that I mentioned. The US thought they could get away with such an invasion. However, the world saw through that. Now the world hates us, we have no allies but Britain and Australia (we will lose Britain in May, just watch). Poland has already said they will remove their troops next year, who is the only other country that supports our movement AND has troops deployed.
So where does this leave us?
Up shit creek if we don't get rid of Bush.....
I'm not endorsing Kerry, I hate him too. But at this point, we need to demonstrate to the world that we don't agree with what we did either, so Bush HAS to go. If he stays, it will be a statement to the world that the US supports this crap.
So please, just don't vote for Bush.
2. Had Saddam Hussein offered complete withdraw from Kuwait in return for the UN to review the Arab-Israeli conflict, would you have been for the first Gulf War?
*If you answered "yes" to either of these, you are lying. There was no movement for war in Afghanistan prior to Sept. 11, there was no movement for war in Iraq prior to Kuwait invasion nor after until the United States declared it wrong. There was no push for an Iraqi war the second time until Bush said they were a threat. People bought the government propaganda in both cases and hopped on the bandwagon preaching songs of war. So why do you follow them now?
Both alternatives offered above seem like plausible and possible alternatives that should be considered right? Yah, but they never happened.
OR DID THEY?:
http://www.sfbg.com/gulfwar/022091.html
http://www.j-n-v.org/AW_briefings/ARROW_briefing004.htm
They were both alternatives to the war that the government and the media failed to report. Would the Taliban or Saddam have kept their word? We don't know because the United States refused to listen or try to deal, and instead rushed to war.
:sniper:
We allowed the Northern Alliance to regain control of Afghanistan. Here is a group of opium warlords who devastated that country through public rapings, assassinations, and civil war; violating every civil right known to man. They devastated that country for 20 years. And now the US allows them to regain control?
We now know Saddam had no WMD's nor was wanting any. What's that you say? He had intentions? I'm sorry to point this out, but he also had 3 billion dollars in American cash lying around his palaces. Anybody in the world could get an arsenal of WMD's for 50 million dollars. He didn't have them because he didn't need them, the UN was going to prevent any country from Iraqi invasion. Well, except for the US.
So he wasn't a threat. But he abused his people right? Another government assertion that you eat up. Unfortunately, there are civil rights abuses in Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Somalia, Tujikistan, Rwanda, and our own allies Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Israel, Indonesia, Afghanistan (now), and ourselves. Are you for invading all of them too, and re-invading Afghanistan?
So what justification was there then, Mr. Knowitall Voyuerism?
Let me spell it out for you: O-I-L and the ease of getting it. Iraq was an easy target that appeared to possess little resistance (at the time) of the bunch of countries that I mentioned. The US thought they could get away with such an invasion. However, the world saw through that. Now the world hates us, we have no allies but Britain and Australia (we will lose Britain in May, just watch). Poland has already said they will remove their troops next year, who is the only other country that supports our movement AND has troops deployed.
So where does this leave us?
Up shit creek if we don't get rid of Bush.....
I'm not endorsing Kerry, I hate him too. But at this point, we need to demonstrate to the world that we don't agree with what we did either, so Bush HAS to go. If he stays, it will be a statement to the world that the US supports this crap.
So please, just don't vote for Bush.