NationStates Jolt Archive

I would SERIOUSLY like to know why some people think this way. This shall be amusing to hear the answer.

The only people who think it's bad are pro-war people, and they think it's bad because the anti-war people disagree with them.

Orwell wrote a little on it. From the anti-war point of view, of course.

I would SERIOUSLY like to know why some people think this way. This shall be amusing to hear the answer.most of the Anti-War people i've heard of never really think things through...

Of course most of the pro war people are gulty of the same thing tho...

What could possibly be bad about the glory of slaughter? Killing your fellow man is what lifes all about. Just look at the old testament.

I assume you mean pacifism. Not really anything, but there are times when government must go to war. The alternative is appeasement, which has been prooven to be a very dangerous philosophy.

Because being against the war in Iraq is pretty much supporting a mad dictator, who killed his own people, slaughtered the kurds, completely took away all the women's rights, had the capability if not already had weapons of mass destruction, was a viable threat to the region and to the U.S., and needed to be taken out of power and a democracy instituted.

most of the Anti-War people i've heard of never really think things through...

Of course most of the pro war people are gulty of the same thing tho...

I just think Pro War people aren't in touch with reality. People are DYING, real people. It's not a fucking game, you're fucking around with actual human being's LIVES! May they be our own soldiers or the enemies, they are all human beings and to waste their lives on some bullshit political agenda is VERY VERY shameful. War in itself is so useless and dumb, it just makes me sick to think about people who's only counter-argument to the anti-war crowd is "you're a bunch of pussies." Fuck that shit.

Because being against the war in Iraq is pretty much supporting a mad dictator, who killed his own people, slaughtered the kurds, completely took away all the women's rights, had the capability if not already had weapons of mass destruction, was a viable threat to the region and to the U.S., and needed to be taken out of power and a democracy instituted.

Do you know how many other countries around the world are in a similar or WORSE situation?!!? Just seems kinda fishy that he would select a country his father failed to convert to democracy previously. Kinda fishy there.

What could possibly be bad about the glory of slaughter? Killing your fellow man is what lifes all about. Just look at the old testament.

If by Old Testament you mean the entirety of Human history your sarcasm may hit closer to home then you imagined.

I'm not so much pro-war as I am that I realize that sometimes ya just gotta fight

Do you know how many other countries around the world are in a similar or WORSE situation?!!? Just seems kinda fishy that he would select a country his father failed to convert to democracy previously. Kinda fishy there.

Do you see how many countries it has actually affected? How many countries are converting into democracies?

So, basically you're saying that Saddam should be put back into power, the Baath party back into power, do away with democracy? I think not, skippy.

If by Old Testament you mean the entirety of Human history your sarcasm may hit closer to home then you imagined. :D

But god told us to, so it must be good.

Do you see how many countries it has actually affected? How many countries are converting into democracies?

So, basically you're saying that Saddam should be put back into power, the Baath party back into power, do away with democracy? I think not, skippy.

Was Saddamn going around killing people and acting crazy at the time when he declared war? Nope. Did he actually have the weapons we "thought" he had? nope. There are other crazies in power around the world, don't see Bush doing a damn THING about it, but it's not as if he gives a shit.

Because being against the war in Iraq is pretty much supporting a mad dictator, who killed his own people, slaughtered the kurds, completely took away all the women's rights, had the capability if not already had weapons of mass destruction, was a viable threat to the region and to the U.S., and needed to be taken out of power and a democracy instituted.

Bush?

Well, it does make sense.

1. killed his own people - bush executed more criminals in his time as governor of Texas than any other state had in years before. He's also sent 1500 + American soldiers to their deaths.

2. Slaughtered the Kurds - I would also add the Shi'ites to this list. But this is the elder Bush. US promised to support an uprising in '91, failed to do so. Guess who died?

3. Took away women's rights. - trying to limit abortion.

4. Has WMD's - I think we can prove the US has nukes. But where are Iraq's?

5. Viable threat to the US (and region) - Bush has done more to anger the world that just about any other national leader since Hitler.

6. Needs to be taken out of power and democracy instituted - after an unprecedented expansion of governmental power to peek into our private lives, after running the most secrative administration in the history of the US, after running a foreign policy that only encourages hatred of the US, after being cocky enough to think we don't need the world, I'd say its time to remove him from power and re-instate democracy in the US.


remeber - regime change begins at home.

I assume you mean pacifism. Not really anything, but there are times when government must go to war. The alternative is appeasement, which has been prooven to be a very dangerous philosophy.
when would a nation have to go to war?

Do you see how many countries it has actually affected? How many countries are converting into democracies?

So, basically you're saying that Saddam should be put back into power, the Baath party back into power, do away with democracy? I think not, skippy.

No he is not. He was asking what is wrong with being anti-war. If you think that being anti-war means that you support a fascist dictator, then you are displaying the sort of narrow mindedness that he was criticising in the first place.
If you personaly do not like smoking. It is an activity that, in your view has killed millions of people, it has adversely affected non smokers, it is just promoted for the profit of a select few etc. Does this mean that you have to go to war with the tobacco companies. No. There are other means of dealing with these situations. The same applies to countries. You can oppose something, effectively without going to war.
Stop with the assumption that anti-war means pro Saddam Hussein. It does not. It simply means that the method imposed on the world by Washington for dealing with SH is one that you do not support.

often times it is immoral to make war, but from time to time situations arise where such extreme actions are needed that it would be immoral to not make war

to rule war out as a potential solution (being "anti-war") is there for wrong

Because being against the war in Iraq is pretty much supporting a mad dictator, who killed his own people, slaughtered the kurds, completely took away all the women's rights, had the capability if not already had weapons of mass destruction, was a viable threat to the region and to the U.S., and needed to be taken out of power and a democracy instituted.


Mad dictator?
Already has WMD?
Threat to the region and the US?

You're talking about Bush, right?

often times it is immoral to make war, but from time to time situations arise where such extreme actions are needed that it would be immoral to not make war

to rule war out as a potential solution (being "anti-war") is there for wrong

I'd be all for war if I were actually DEFENDING my country. Legally and clearly. If invasion was eminant I'd immediately find the nearest military recruiter. My parents however did not spend 17 years of their lives raising me so I can go over to some foreign land and get my head chopped off for almost no reason what so ever.

But god told us to, so it must be good.

Basically every Human culture in every corner of the world, no matter how isolated, has maintained a standing force of armed men ranging from a basic armed militia to a organized army. Violent contest has literally been non-stop in at least one small corner of the world. Fact is, where their are Humans there are warriors. Sure small groups (particularly Religions groups) have attempted to live as pacifists but have really not made any profound impact on the course of war. Believe me, man doesn't need God as a excuse for bloodshed. Everything from entertainment to women to politics to genuine necessity have been reasons for bloodshed, religion (which, believe it or not condemns it more then supports it) is nothing special.

There is indeed a time and place for everything, war has proven itself worthy of as much.

I'd be all for war if I were actually DEFENDING my country. Legally and clearly. If invasion was eminant I'd immediately find the nearest military recruiter. My parents however did not spend 17 years of their lives raising me so I can go over to some foreign land and get my head chopped off for almost no reason what so ever.

you're willing die to protect American people and the rights of Americans

why not be willing die to protect the lives and rights of others?

if we're all created equally you'd be a hipocrit not to

you're willing die to protect American people and the rights of Americans

why not be willing die to protect the lives and rights of others?

if we're all created equally you'd be a hipocrit not to

I would be willing to die for the cause of others if that was the ACTUAL CLEAR INTENTION! I do not feel as if Bush's intentions are pure or competant. I do NOT want to die for something that is as shady as that. And you'd have to be a fucking fool to want to jump in without questioning. So hippcrit my ass.

you're willing die to protect American people and the rights of Americans

why not be willing die to protect the lives and rights of others?

if we're all created equally you'd be a hipocrit not to

Show me where their old constitution says that they're all created equally, and I'll do it in a heartbeat. The second they become an American citizen, they're equal. The second they join up with a nation on equal footing with similar values, they're equal. Until then, I'm going to go with something my mother always told me to do, and apply it to the nation.

I'm gonna keep my nose out of other people's business and clean up my own room.

Governments should listen to their mothers more often.

Mad dictator?
Already has WMD?
Threat to the region and the US?

You're talking about Bush, right?
haha love it, but really bush doesnt have WMDs, cheney is the one runnin the show

I would be willing to die for the cause of others if that was the ACTUAL CLEAR INTENTION! I do not feel as if Bush's intentions are pure or competant. I do NOT want to die for something that is as shady as that. And you'd have to be a fucking fool to want to jump in without questioning. So hippcrit my ass.

or would I be a fool not to?

I'm a high school student, I try to keep up on my world affairs and I believe I do a good job but look at it this way;

-the US government is probobly the most powerful organizations on earth, they have whole departments studying these issues and they've got an increadeble track reccord

-I'm a high school student, I barely have time to read the news and my track reccord includes failing physics

if the US govenrment and I have a dissagrement chances are that they're right

haha love it, but really bush doesnt have WMDs, cheney is the one runnin the show

What's the difference? They're both President, same as Bill and Hillary were.

Show me where their old constitution says that they're all created equally, and I'll do it in a heartbeat. The second they become an American citizen, they're equal. The second they join up with a nation on equal footing with similar values, they're equal. Until then, I'm going to go with something my mother always told me to do, and apply it to the nation.

so only when someone is part of your nation do you give a damn?

then what the hell was wrong with the holocaust?

-the US government is probobly the most powerful organizations on earth, they have whole departments studying these issues and they've got an increadeble track reccord

Actually, they just TELL you they have an incredible track record. So far, they're behind in jobs, education, health care, and budget, and way ahead in debt, pissing off entire regions of the world, and breeding people who can't be bothered to give serious thought to what the consequences of their government's actions will be.

The beauty of the United States is that any idiot can be President.
The downside of the United States is that any idiot can be President.

or would I be a fool not to?

I'm a high school student, I try to keep up on my world affairs and I believe I do a good job but look at it this way;

-the US government is probobly the most powerful organizations on earth, they have whole departments studying these issues and they've got an increadeble track reccord

-I'm a high school student, I barely have time to read the news and my track reccord includes failing physics

if the US govenrment and I have a dissagrement chances are that they're right

I'm a highschool student as well, but as everybody knows. No nation is correct 100% of the time. Nations are like a human being. It lies, cheats, steals, and is most likely corrupted. The US has a record of deciet and witholding information from it's citizens, and I always take that into account when I listen to what my government has to say. However as of now, I do not completely trust my government, and I don't think anybody should. I love America, it's a great place and I would rather be here than anywhere else, but that doesn't mean I should be a mindless drone.

I'm a highschool student as well, but as everybody knows. No nation is correct 100% of the time. Nations are like a human being. It lies, cheats, steals, and is most likely corrupted. The US has a record of deciet and witholding information from it's citizens, and I always take that into account when I listen to what my government has to say. However as of now, I do not completely trust my government, and I don't think anybody should. I love America, it's a great place and I would rather be here than anywhere else, but that doesn't mean I should be a mindless drone.

Very well-said, man.

So far, they're behind in jobs,

we're not a socialist country, and I'm talking about war

health care,

still not a socialist country

and budget, and way ahead in debt,

we've been in debt since the revolution, this is nothing new

pissing off entire regions of the world, and

they deserve to have their feathers ruffeled

breeding people

didn't know the government was in charge of that

Very well-said, man.

Why thank you :D

so only when someone is part of your nation do you give a damn?

then what the hell was wrong with the holocaust?

You want an honest answer to that? Because Hitler and his allies suddenly became an immediate threat to the security of the US. Have you ever played Risk or Axis and Allies? In that game, you don't care about the loss of a country or two. However, when a person has taken over a significant portion of the world and doesn't look like he's stopping anytime soon, you gun him down like a dog in the street every chance you get, just to keep him from rolling over you, too.

The games were both inspired by World War II.

I'd also like to point out that in World War II, the US retained a solid state of unbiased trade with both sides until the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. If you're going to argue a war to prove your point that we should help out other countries for purely heroic reasons, you might wanna pick another one.

No nation is correct 100% of the time.

granted

The US has a record of deciet and witholding information from it's citizens

from time to time, but it has a much better reccord of justice and honesty

but that doesn't mean I should be a mindless drone.

but if the govenrment were to say you were needed to fight a war because its in the best intrest on mankind and human rights would you have reason to doubt them?

it's not a bad thing to be Anti-war... just realize that there are times when war is necessary.

but if the govenrment were to say you were needed to fight a war because its in the best intrest on mankind and human rights would you have reason to doubt them?

Yes. I would have EVERY reason to doubt them.

If I told you I had a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn, would you just hand over the money to me?

You want an honest answer to that? Because Hitler and his allies suddenly became an immediate threat to the security of the US.

the hell it was, Hitler wanted more than anything in the world to be our friend

Have you ever played Risk or Axis and Allies?

if I was a mean spirited person or thought this wasn't going anywhere I'd be tempted to respond with something along the lines of "have you ever studied history?" or "have you ever read a newspaper?"

I'd also like to point out that in World War II, the US retained a solid state of unbiased trade with both sides until the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.

like hell - we banned steel and oil exports to japan, gave war supplies (lend lease act of 1940) to the allies for a song and escorted our mechentships to the UK in violation of the rules of war

If you're going to argue a war to prove your point that we should help out other countries for purely heroic reasons, you might wanna pick another one.

Vietnam

If I told you I had a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn, would you just hand over the money to me?

if you were the proprioter of a well know reputable firm that has sold bridges for the past 225 years and whom had sold satasfactory bridges to members of my familiy in the recent past then I just might

"like hell - we banned steel and oil exports to China, gave war supplies (lend lease act of 1940) to the allies for a song and escorted our mechentships to the UK in violation of the rules of war"
You do know that China was on our side against Japan?
Do the Chinese Tigers ring a bell?

In order for anti-war movements to work, they have to be done on both sides. If one side says "screw this, we don't want to die anymore," and the other says "screw you, we're gonna kill you all anyway," its sort of useless. The Arab states would have done that to Israel, Germany would have done that to, well, just about everywhere, etc. etc.

There are times when it is necessary to go to war. What is important is the way in which the war is conducted.

But on the other hand, it is much more courageous to participate in non-violent movements than armed struggle. I, for one, would not have the stomach to stand in front of a line of tanks or get beat up and shot by people who think I'm not worth dirt.

As for Iraq, it is a testy subject. There are plenty of much more pressing human rights crises than Iraq. Take the Sudan, The Congo, Liberia, and a long list of other places. Especially in west africa, instead of being a 'threat to surrounding countries,' nations went around and armed mercenaries, militias, and even actively participated in civil wars.

You do know that China was on our side against Japan?
Do the Chinese Tigers ring a bell?

sorry, I went tarded for a seccond there

thanks for pointing that out, I ment Japan

and yes, I remember the flying tigers (payed for by the state department, further proving we were not heartless and neutral till the japs attacked us)

granted



from time to time, but it has a much better reccord of justice and honesty



but if the govenrment were to say you were needed to fight a war because its in the best intrest on mankind and human rights would you have reason to doubt them?

Hell yeah, you are fucking right I'd have a reason. If the government told you that eating dog feces is good for you, it seems like you'd chow down happily wouldn't you? I can't trust everything my government tells me, especially with the president that we have. I cannot and WILL NOT blindly follow anybody.

Vietnam
yeah cause that was heroic? america wouldnt even declare war

or would I be a fool not to?

I'm a high school student, I try to keep up on my world affairs and I believe I do a good job but look at it this way;

-the US government is probobly the most powerful organizations on earth, they have whole departments studying these issues and they've got an increadeble track reccord

-I'm a high school student, I barely have time to read the news and my track reccord includes failing physics

if the US govenrment and I have a dissagrement chances are that they're right


C'mon we can't all be good at physics, and you do raise the point that we can't all be good at foreign policy.
I congradulate you for being in High School and keeping up with foreign affairs, too many people don't make the effort. I think though that you overestimate the government's abilities in this department. They constantly make mistakes because of ignorance, and they don't hire the people who know these things. A lot of times the very people that know the most about these things are 'politically suspect'. That is to say what ever government is in power at the time,( I am NOT repeat NOT speaking of any one party!) decides that they don't want to hear it because it doesn't co:incide with their theories of how things work. Then something goes way the hell wrong.
They screw the pooch more than you think. When you start really delveing into this you will find that out pretty quickly. The other thing is that however well educated you are at High School age, you don't have a sense of history, not even the puny one most Americans seem to have. With care, you will develope a sense of history and the stuff that keeps happening over and over again regardless of the Administration in power is going to start makeing you feel annoyed, it might even make you kookook. Anyway take care, and don't assume the government always gets it better than you. That is how Germany got plunged into the Third Reich, people assumed that stuff and wanted easy answers.

Even though I personally favor an extensive military and highly trained police force, I do not believe it is bad to be *against* war. The one thing I find extremely wrong with most anti-war nations is that not only will they bend over backwards to appease a threatening nation and not have to even defend themselves, but if they are not involved in a war, they will not lift a finger, no matter how strongly they believe in one side's cause. Also, war can help create strong national alliances, solve important international disputes, boost morale within the nation, and build national image overseas. If a dispute can be solved peacefully, then do so. Otherwise, blow that sorry-ass rock right out of the water! :mp5:

the hell it was, Hitler wanted more than anything in the world to be our friend

Yup, that's absolutely true. He wanted nothing more desperately than to be our friend until he had a good, solid base from which to trounce us. The reason for this is pure logistics. Read a history book sometime yourself.

if I was a mean spirited person or thought this wasn't going anywhere I'd be tempted to respond with something along the lines of "have you ever studied history?" or "have you ever read a newspaper?"

And I would laugh at you in the same way I laugh at you for your horrible spelling errors. You may be in a history class, but you haven't learned anything but what they've fed you.

like hell - we banned steel and oil exports to China, gave war supplies (lend lease act of 1940) to the allies for a song and escorted our mechentships to the UK in violation of the rules of war

Read more into the subject, like some books besides your history book. We also sold a lot of stuff (again, metals, weapons, and other supplies) to Hitler. Once he proved himself to be a big enough threat to potentially cause us harm, we stopped (conveniently enough for him, by that time he'd already taken over enough of Europe to sustain himself) and began the Lend/Lease Act to support the people who were--gasp!--serving as a buffer zone between him and us.

Vietnam

I'd assumed you'd pick a war we came close to winning, but alright, Vietnam works. Again, as with World War II, Vietnam was fought to prevent the balance of power of what we had come to believe was an offensive government from growing too large to be controlled. It was all about containing Communism, which at that point had come to be perceived as a major threat against the US. Our attempt to "retake" Vietnam was not an effort to save anybody from oppression (though that was a fabulous excuse, just as it is in Iraq), but instead to prevent the Communist nations from getting a big enough base to pose a threat to the US.

Naturally, we failed in our attempts to do that mostly because we were fighting a war we had absolutely no idea how to win (guerrilla warfare had not really been excersized by or fought against by the US or fought before then since the Revolutionary War), with troops who didn't want to fight (drafting people is almost universally a bad idea unless it's mandatory for everyone from the start), over a cause more and more people didn't believe in (seeing your loved ones blown to hamburger on national television doesn't help things, and since then the media has been kept very far from the actual meat of any wartime activity--and don't even try to tell me about anything being done in Iraq. You know I'm right.).

Most importantly, though, the main reason that we lost the war is for the same reason we're going to lose this one: There's no real good reason for it, and because of that the citizenry of the US doesn't fully back the effort.

That said, I believe it's fairly universal that each and every one of us backs the troops in Iraq. My soon-to-be father-in-law was over there for a while. However, wanting everybody home safely and wanting them to be safe while they're over there is completely and totally different from what a very large chunk of US citizens are against, and that's the war itself.

Support the troops, yes. Support the idiots who decided to wage daddy's war just to solidify a seat in office that was called into question by such a close margin? Hell no.

Hell yeah, you are fucking right I'd have a reason.

and that reason is?

If the government told you that eating dog feces is good for you, it seems like you'd chow down happily wouldn't you? I can't trust everything my government tells me, especially with the president that we have. I cannot and WILL NOT blindly follow anybody.

no, I would not - nor am I talking about blindly following

forth you see; I know that eating dog feces is bad - it a medical fact so in that instance I would not trust the government

if on the other hand another topic arises like "what should ethenal content in gas be?" "what should minimum wage be set at?" or in this case "is war the most likly solution to a problem?" and I have no background on these topics nor do I have the opinions of people who do the govenrment would be in a better position to give an opinion and I'd be a fool not to follow it

and that reason is?



no, I would not - nor am I talking about blindly following

forth you see; I know that eating dog feces is bad - it a medical fact so in that instance I would not trust the government

if on the other hand another topic arises like "what should ethenal content in gas be?" "what should minimum wage be set at?" or in this case "is war the most likly solution to a problem?" and I have no background on these topics nor do I have the opinions of people who do the govenrment would be in a better position to give an opinion and I'd be a fool not to follow it
so youre saying that it should be the government, who has ties to the oil industry, not an unbiased group of experts who should make such decisions?

forth you see; I know that eating dog feces is bad - it a medical fact so in that instance I would not trust the government

if on the other hand another topic arises like "what should ethenal content in gas be?" "what should minimum wage be set at?" or in this case "is war the most likly solution to a problem?" and I have no background on these topics nor do I have the opinions of people who do the govenrment would be in a better position to give an opinion and I'd be a fool not to follow it

It's a medical fact given to you courtesy of your government, upon which you rely so dearly. Personally, I'm willing to go with you on the dog feces thing, just because, let's face it, it's dog feces. Even idiots wouldn't eat it.

So let's choose something more appetizing... how about... eggs.

What's your opinion on eggs? Are they good for you or bad for you?

And yes, this is most certainly going somewhere.

and that reason is?

The reason is plainly because the government cannot be trusted totally. If such a scenario was announced I would need proof equal to the magnitude of the claim. To automatically believe in it would in my opinion constitute weak judgement, or the inability to think 5 minutes in front of your face.

Yup, that's absolutely true. He wanted nothing more desperately than to be our friend until he had a good, solid base from which to trounce us. The reason for this is pure logistics. Read a history book sometime yourself.

that my good friend is conjecture, the only evidence we have is in the form of the diplomatic attempts by the Germand government to draw us into the fold

Read more into the subject, like some books besides your history book. We also sold a lot of stuff (again, metals, weapons, and other supplies) to Hitler. Once he proved himself to be a big enough threat to potentially cause us harm, we stopped (conveniently enough for him, by that time he'd already taken over enough of Europe to sustain himself) and began the Lend/Lease Act to support the people who were--gasp!--serving as a buffer zone between him and us.

perhaps private corperations did, but the government?

I'd assumed you'd pick a war we came close to winning, but alright, Vietnam works.

you told me to pick one that was fought on morality, not one that we won

Naturally, we failed in our attempts to do that mostly because we were fighting a war we had absolutely no idea how to win (guerrilla warfare had not really been excersized by or fought against by the US or fought before then since the Revolutionary War), with troops who didn't want to fight (drafting people is almost universally a bad idea unless it's mandatory for everyone from the start), over a cause more and more people didn't believe in (seeing your loved ones blown to hamburger on national television doesn't help things, and since then the media has been kept very far from the actual meat of any wartime activity--and don't even try to tell me about anything being done in Iraq. You know I'm right.).

but does that in any way prove that the govenrment was inccorect in its assumption that halting communism in south vietnam would be for the good of both the American and the Vietnamese people?

Most importantly, though, the main reason that we lost the war is for the same reason we're going to lose this one: There's no real good reason for it.

halting communism wasn't a reason?

re-stabilization of Iraq isn't a reason?

to wage daddy's war just to solidify a seat in office that was called into question by such a close margin? Hell no.

I think it may have been a little more complicated than that

The reason is plainly because the government cannot be trusted totally. If such a scenario was announced I would need proof equal to the magnitude of the claim. To automatically believe in it would in my opinion constitute weak judgement, or the inability to think 5 minutes in front of your face.

when a doctor tells you that you've got a sinsus infection do you ask for proof?

the govenrment might not be right but in most cases they're the best qualified to give advice and they've got no reason to lie to you

It's a medical fact given to you courtesy of your government,

no, its a medical fact given to me courtesy of the independent medical proffession

What's your opinion on eggs? Are they good for you or bad for you?


well, since doctors would be the most qualified on this matter I'll stick with their opinion that it all depends on your rate of caloric use and regular diet

so youre saying that it should be the government, who has ties to the oil industry, not an unbiased group of experts who should make such decisions?

the state department has ties to the oil industry?

if such oil ties were true the would have just had W lift the pre-war sanctions

imagine how much of a boom Iraqi oil being pumped out be pre-war infostructure onto the open market would have been

Being anti-war is not bad.

On the contrary, it is very good

On the contrary, it is very good

how so?

when a doctor tells you that you've got a sinsus infection do you ask for proof?

the govenrment might not be right but in most cases they're the best qualified to give advice and they've got no reason to lie to you

I get a second opinion. As a matter of fact, most people do.

Do you?

when a doctor tells you that you've got a sinsus infection do you ask for proof?

the govenrment might not be right but in most cases they're the best qualified to give advice and they've got no reason to lie to you

Actually yes, I don't trust doctors. The doctors we have today do NOT care about you, they care about your money. A recent hospital mishap with my mother has only reinforced such a behavior. I do not completely trust anybody that I do not personally know, because I do not know their tendency to be right or wrong, or if they are capable of deceit and supplying me with misinformation for the sake of their own personal gain.

how so?
It is good to be anti-war, a pacifist

War creates, death, despair, loneliness, betrayal, and greed. How are any of those good?

I get a second opinion. As a matter of fact, most people do.

thats why we have thousands of government agents, not just one

Do you?

no, mine's got a good reccord

I do not completely trust anybody that I do not personally know, because I do not know their tendency to be right or wrong, or if they are capable of deceit and supplying me with misinformation for the sake of their own personal gain.

did you eat today?

did you grow the food?

Actually yes, I don't trust doctors. The doctors we have today do NOT care about you, they care about your money. A recent hospital mishap with my mother has only reinforced such a behavior. I do not completely trust anybody that I do not personally know, because I do not know their tendency to be right or wrong, or if they are capable of deceit and supplying me with misinformation for the sake of their own personal gain.


Not disagreeing with you at all, just throwing in another example. Since our little golden boy apparently pays close attention to what the media's feeding him, I thought I'd throw in an interesting little tidbit from there to support our argument...

How about all that insurance fraud that's been going on lately? Doctors performing lots of needless operations just to make a little extra cash? I'd think that a little extra proof that my sinus infection (or their colonoscopies) were really necessary would have been a very good idea...

But then, since he's blindly following, maybe he needs a colonoscopy.

"You are very sleepy. You trust me. Very very sleepy.Trust the government. We'd never decieve you. We know what's good for you."
*swings pendulum in front of Schrandtopia's eyes*

Concerning Declarations of War by Congress...

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20020306.html
http://www.jcs-group.com/military/wars.html

Note that the second link leaves out two major wars, the one we are in now and the US Civil war, neither of which were declared by Congress.


Concerning being anti-war...

Being doggedly anti-war is as foolish as being doggedly pro-war. The good and bad that can result of a war must be considdered, then once a decision is made that it is neccessary or right to engage in war, war must occur. If the bad of war outweighs the good or the war is wrong, war must not occur.

Taking a stance that war is a risky thing that should only be gone into with good reason makes one wise. Believing that it is always wrong makes you at best foolish, and at worst a willful participator in negligent homicide.

-Feil

War creates, death, despair, loneliness, betrayal, and greed. How are any of those good?

at the same time the lack of war (inaction) can and has create those same things

how can you give war a blanket condemnation?

Schrandtopia, you know I am honored to debate with you. You haven't proceeded to name-calling or insults of any kind, and you have continued to present what you firmly believe in. A fine poster I must say, even though I don't agree with most of what you have said here.

most of the Anti-War people i've heard of never really think things through...

Of course most of the pro war people are gulty of the same thing tho...
This pretty much sums it up. The protesters are funny to talk to and get pissed off if you can counter their agitprop with actual logic. Just last night I was in chicago going out to dinner with a couple of friends. Afterwards we saw a group of protesters. I went over and just stood there. Girl comes up to me with a sign about ending the occupation in Palestine and Afghanistan.To make a long story short we started talking about palestine and she brought up the whole Jenin Jenin bit. I would have thought by now that anybody who cared enough to protest would keep up with news, especially the news that such thing was on par with any of Michael Moore's crap. That is to say, very little credibility if any at all. Ah well, stupidity is alive and well.

thats why we have thousands of government agents, not just one



no, mine's got a good reccord

Thousands of government agents, all working for the same government. That's like saying that, because there are thousands of people working for MCI, they're telling you the truth about everything when they tell you that you should switch your long distance service from Bell.

Oh he does? Have you talked to each of his patients? Has he told you about all the ones that he's ticked off to the point that they'll never return? Would he tell you if he had such patients? Would you tell patients that you'd screwed up to the point where you'd lost a customer, if you were a doctor?

I'd think that a little extra proof that my sinus infection (or their colonoscopies) were really necessary would have been a very good idea...

not to retort or anything but the reason doctors order so many test is because its cheapers than getting sued by some jackass with an ambulence-casing lawyer, they rarely see any money out of it

Thousands of government agents, all working for the same government.

two doctors - each trained by teachers certified by the same organisation, eacher studied from the same text book and unless you travel to a different town both probobly work for the same corporation

Oh he does? Have you talked to each of his patients? Has he told you about all the ones that he's ticked off to the point that they'll never return? Would he tell you if he had such patients? Would you tell patients that you'd screwed up to the point where you'd lost a customer, if you were a doctor?

I know what I know, he's never failed me or any of my family members or anyone I know

and its better to just accept that blanket observation that waste time seeing another doctor

Schrandtopia, you know I am honored to debate with you. You haven't proceeded to name-calling or insults of any kind, and you have continued to present what you firmly believe in. A fine poster I must say, even though I don't agree with most of what you have said here.

much the same, thanks for not calling me an elitist who will never see the fields I condem poorer men to die on

not to retort or anything but the reason doctors order so many test is because its cheapers than getting sued by some jackass with an ambulence-casing lawyer, they rarely see any money out of it

One doctor running many tests is still just one doctor.

One government telling you that a war is all cool and spiffy is still just one government.

When you get a second opinion, the idea is to confirm the problem and that it is really necessary. The same should always apply to governments, as well. Don't ever get all your news from just one source, and don't ever trust just one doctor to tell you what the proper course of action is when something's gone horribly wrong.

When we entered this war, we were the only ones going in, because we were not in the right. We pressured other governments into going into it with us, through monetary and political movements, and that's why the few that did join us did so. Now, as soon as they possibly could, how many of them have withdrawn troops while we still swear up and down that we're right?

much the same, thanks for not calling me an elitist who will never see the fields I condem poorer men to die on

It's no problem at all. Certain people need to take notes.

One doctor running many tests is still just one doctor.

two doctors who will run the same test with the same equipment?

When you get a second opinion, the idea is to confirm the problem and that it is really necessary. The same should always apply to governments, as well.

but there is no other source out there with the information at their disposal that the govenrment has

When we entered this war, we were the only ones going in, because we were not in the right.

us and 71 other countries, more than we had when we went in in '91

Now, as soon as they possibly could, how many of them have withdrawn troops while we still swear up and down that we're right?

5

two doctors - each trained by teachers certified by the same organisation, eacher studied from the same text book and unless you travel to a different town both probobly work for the same corporation

and its better to just accept that blanket observation that waste time seeing another doctor

Clearly, you don't know how to get a second opinion. Being young, you've probably never had to bother with it, so I'll explain the idea to you. First, you go to Doctor A, who will give you his opinion... say, "Your heart is gonna explode in twenty minutes!" or maybe something a little less drastic.

Then, with the information that Doctor A provided you with, you go to Doctor B. Doctor B is not a member of the same office or hospital (though occasionally that can be alright, it depends), and you ask him his opinion of the matter... without ever giving him any of the information that Doctor A gave you, just giving him the information that you gave to Doctor A to begin with, from which Doctor A made his diagnosis.

Ideally, both doctors say the same thing and you carry on with your appointment utilizing both doctors' advice. However, the idea is to make sure that the first opinion was correct by having the second opinion match up. If they don't match, one or the other of them has done something wrong, and you seek out a reason for this... human error, machine error, etc.

This prevents your colonoscopy from occurring if the problem's really your tonsils.

Oh, and for the most part, unless the town's just really, really tiny, there are almost always two or more doctors offices in it. Given the variety of medical schools these days, you're going to be hard-pressed to find two doctors in a town who don't work together who attended the same medical school, too. As for using the same textbooks... well, I can pretty much guarantee you that they don't use the same textbooks. Hell, you can take the same college course under two different instructors in the same semester (if you can con your advisor into letting you... fun experiment) and not use the same books for them.

The only people who think it's bad are pro-war people, and they think it's bad because the anti-war people disagree with them.
Not quite.

I don't consider myself "pro-war," particularly since I've seen it up close and personal. But neither do I consider myself to be "anti-war." Survival requires flexibility, flexibility means keeping your options open, keeping your options open means not renouncing the use of force when it's necessary.

Being anit-war is all well and good when you're all comfy in your den or living room or bedroom and no one is treatening to kill your wife and family. There are, however, those who would happily do just that. To not be prepared to defend yourself in a dangerous world is an act of insanity.

two doctors who will run the same test with the same equipment?


Not to get too off-topic or anything, but how small IS the town you're from? I'm wondering because I'm from a town of only 44,000 people and we've got two major hospitals and at least a dozen private practices that I know of, and I'm new to the area. The city I'm formerly from has at least five major hospitals and several dozen private practices (and was significantly larger).

Wow. That killed the thread.

One problem i see is that neither side is willing to understand the other. Subscribers to both the anti and pro war ideologies hate each other with a vigorous passion.

Because being against the war in Iraq is pretty much supporting a mad dictator, who killed his own people, slaughtered the kurds, completely took away all the women's rights, had the capability if not already had weapons of mass destruction, was a viable threat to the region and to the U.S., and needed to be taken out of power and a democracy instituted.

Supporting the "mad dictator" who did all these nasty things was the official policy of the US before the 1st Gulf War. The US also took active steps to keep Saddam in power after the 1st Gulf War.

The US is currently actively supporting many dictators around the world.

And we have been on this merry-go-round before. We support or cause a "regime change" in a country, which (in addition to causing massive deaths and suffering) results in yet another enemy of the US.

Clearly, you don't know how to get a second opinion.

clearly you don't understand the point of having multiple intelegence agents

both those doctors have the same qualifications and probobly work for the same corperation but you might want to get a seccond opinion, same thing goes for military intelegence, the closest people to us power-wise (despite having 1/10th. of our budget) in MI5 and they agree with us

Not to get too off-topic or anything, but how small IS the town you're from? I'm wondering because I'm from a town of only 44,000 people and we've got two major hospitals and at least a dozen private practices that I know of, and I'm new to the area. The city I'm formerly from has at least five major hospitals and several dozen private practices (and was significantly larger).

we've got 4 major hospitals and more than a few private practices but 3 of those 4 hospitals are owned by one corperation and I do believe the 4th. is subsidised by it

The US also took active steps to keep Saddam in power after the 1st Gulf War.

can you back that up with something?

The US is currently actively supporting many dictators around the world

how many genocidal dictators?

and how many of those countries are ready to transition to democracy?

pro-war and anti-war are red herrings and you all took the bait.

nobody but Satan himself can be pro-war. War is ugly and unplesant. It is also, sadly, often unavoidable.

anti-war however is not the same. Many people can be anti-war. Though their intentions may be good they lack the sophistication to understand the implications of a nation that refused to participate in military action. Here's a hint - none are still around.

most of the Anti-War people i've heard of never really think things through...

Of course most of the pro war people are gulty of the same thing tho...

I agree with JuNii here, I really haven't herd one whom had any touch with reality. What more can be said, some people are just violent, look at how many folks on this board alone fight tooth and nail if you say they are wrong and/or present another viewpoint.

Not quite.

I don't consider myself "pro-war," particularly since I've seen it up close and personal. But neither do I consider myself to be "anti-war." Survival requires flexibility, flexibility means keeping your options open, keeping your options open means not renouncing the use of force when it's necessary.

Being anit-war is all well and good when you're all comfy in your den or living room or bedroom and no one is treatening to kill your wife and family. There are, however, those who would happily do just that. To not be prepared to defend yourself in a dangerous world is an act of insanity.

So could you say that it is good to be "Anti-War" but still see the logic in fighting if the enemy lands 20 minutes away? Hippocritical as it sounds, it might make more sense to defend your ideals on your home turf than try to impose your ideals in someone else's domain. Would that agree with your statement?

pro-war and anti-war are red herrings and you all took the bait.

nobody but Satan himself can be pro-war. War is ugly and unplesant. It is also, sadly, often unavoidable.

anti-war however is not the same. Many people can be anti-war. Though their intentions may be good they lack the sophistication to understand the implications of a nation that refused to participate in military action. Here's a hint - none are still around.

Many people here are not anti-war, in the absolutist manner that you are presenting. Nor, as you point out, is any one pro-war. I would describe myself as being anti - unnecessary war. One of the central issues concerning the Iraq war is whether it was necessary or not. Those who hold that it was not necessary are branded as anti-war, those who thought it was are called pro-war. These are the terms being discussed here, not the absolute ones you portray. At times the war in question is changed, to see where the line is drawn, but it is all about the need for the war, not war as an end in itself.

Being totally against war is a bad thing because if you are totally agaist war, you're not willing to defend yourself or your rights, therefore you're either dead or a slave.

As Alien Born said, no ones for war, but war can be neccasary. Personally I believe that war with Iraq was ... the first step. You see historians and other people judge war by their morals in the future not by the facts and emotions of the past. If two people can't get along and can't seperate themselves, a fight ensues.

But whether you beleive it was necsasary or not, it happend and you can't change , all you can do is judge it by your moral compass ... for better or worse. But remember, those who totally sempathize with their enemies after defeating them, become their servants.

But whether you beleive it was necsasary or not, it happend and you can't change , all you can do is judge it by your moral compass ... for better or worse. But remember, those who totally sympathize with their enemies after defeating them, become their servants.

Or they become friends and never go to war again. Wars are fought between states (normally), what type of entity sympathises: People (normally). I am British, my country fought wars against the German state. Does this mean that if a sympathise now, with a german, I become his (or her) servant. (The her bit might not be sooo bad, thinking about it. :eek: )

These activists may be alone or in a gathering.....most of us don't know how to react to them. When you come upon one of these people, or one of their rallies, here are the proper rules of etiquette:

1. Listen politely while this person explains their views. Strike up a conversation if necessary and look very interested in their ideas. They will tell you how revenge is immoral, and that by attacking the people who did this to us, we will only bring on more violence. They will probably use many arguments, ranging from political to religious to humanitarian.

2. In the middle of their remarks, without any warning, punch them in the nose.

3. When the person gets up off of the ground, they will be very angry and they may try to hit you, so be careful.

4. Very quickly and calmly remind the person that violence only brings about more violence and remind them of their stand on this matter. Tell them if they are really committed to a nonviolent approach to undeserved attacks, they will turn the other cheek and negotiate a solution. Tell them they must lead by example if they really believe what they are saying.

5. Most of them will think for a moment and then agree that you are correct.

6. As soon as they do that, hit them again. Only this time hit them much harder. Square in the nose.

7. Repeat steps 2-5 until the desired results are obtained and the idiot realizes how stupid of an argument he/she is making.

8. There is no difference in an individual attacking an unsuspecting victim or a group of terrorists attacking a nation of people. It is unacceptable and must be dealt with. Perhaps at a high cost. We owe our military a huge debt for what they are doing for us and our children. We must support them and our leaders at times like these. We have no choice. We either strike back, VERY HARD, or we will keep getting hit in the nose.

Lesson over, class dismissed

8. There is no difference in an individual attacking an unsuspecting victim or a group of terrorists attacking a nation of people. It is unacceptable and must be dealt with. Perhaps at a high cost. We owe our military a huge debt for what they are doing for us and our children. We must support them and our leaders at times like these. We have no choice. We either strike back, VERY HARD, or we will keep getting hit in the nose.

Lesson over, class dismissed

Not quite class, sit back down a minute.

If someone hits you on the nose, hit them back, very hard. However if someone hits you on the nose, hitting someone else, for some other reason, is not justified.

SO if the terrorists hit the USA, go hit the terrorists. Do not go and hit Iraqi civilians who are not terrorists. The debate over the war, is not a debate on the war on terror, but one over the war in Iraq. Different wars.

Class dismissed. Leave your weekly reports on the desk as you leave.

Why do people feel being anti-war is bad? They are conformists who don't understand how anybody could have a different opinion than them, they then spin this to their own liking calling anti-war protesters terrorists and other names which aren't true at all, because the U.S. Constitution protects freedom of speech. Unfortunately, not all people understand this concept, and those are the people that are truly un-American.

Not quite class, sit back down a minute.

If someone hits you on the nose, hit them back, very hard. However if someone hits you on the nose, hitting someone else, for some other reason, is not justified.

SO if the terrorists hit the USA, go hit the terrorists. Do not go and hit Iraqi civilians who are not terrorists. The debate over the war, is not a debate on the war on terror, but one over the war in Iraq. Different wars.

Class dismissed. Leave your weekly reports on the desk as you leave.

Ok, so let's listen to someone who has "Been there, done that".

This was in an email I received from a friend on the matter...

The other day, my nine year old son wanted to know why we were at war. My
husband looked at our son and then looked at me. My husband and I were in
the Army during the Gulf War and we would be honored to serve and defend
our Country again today. I knew that my husband would give him a good
explanation.

My husband thought for a few minutes and then told my son to go stand in
our front living room window. He told him: "Son, stand there and tell me
what you see?"

"I see trees and cars and our neighbor's houses." he replied.

"OK, now I want you to pretend that our house and our yard is the United
States of America and you are President Bush."

Our son giggled and said "OK."

"Now son, I want you to look out the window and pretend that every house
and yard on this block is a different country" my husband said.

"OK Dad, I'm pretending."

"Now I want you to stand there and look out the window and see that man
come out of his house with his wife and he has her by the hair and is
hitting her. You see her bleeding and crying. He hits her in the face, he
throws her on the ground, then he starts to kick her to death. Their
children run out and are afraid to stop him, they are crying, they are
watching this but do nothing because they are kids and afraid of their
father. You see all of this son.... what do you do?" "Dad?" "What do you do
son?"

"I call the police, Dad."

"OK. Pretend that the police are the United Nations and they take your
call, listen to what you know and saw but they refuse to help. What do you
do then son?"

"Dad, but the police are supposed to help!" My son starts to whine.

"They don't want to son, because they say that it is not their place or
your place to get involved and that you should stay out of it," my husband
says.

"But Dad...he killed her!!" my son exclaims.

"I know he did...but the police tell you to stay out of it. Now I want you
to look out that window and pretend you see our neighbor who you're
pretending is Saddam turn around and do the same thing to his children."
"Daddy...he kills them?" "Yes son, he does. What do you do?" "Well, if the
police don't want to help, I will go and ask my next door neighbor to help
me stop him." our son says.

"Son, our next door neighbor sees what is happening and refuses to get
involved as well. He refuses to open the door and help you stop him," my
husband says.

"But Dad, I NEED help!!! I can't stop him by myself!!"

"WHAT DO YOU DO SON?" Our son starts to cry.

"OK, no one wants to help you, the man across the street saw you ask for
help and saw that no one would help you stop him. He stands taller and
puffs out his chest. Guess what he does next son?" "What Daddy?"

"He walks across the street to the old ladies house and breaks down her
door and drags her out, steals all her stuff and sets her house on fire and
then...he kills her. He turns around and sees you standing in he window and
laughs at you. WHAT DO YOU DO?"

"Daddy..." "WHAT DO YOU DO?" Our son is crying and he looks down and he
whispers, "I close the blinds, Daddy." My husband looks at our son with
tears in his eyes and asks him... "Why?"

"Because Daddy.....the police are supposed to help...people who needs
it....and they won't help....You always say that neighbors are supposed to
HELP neighbors, but they won't help either...they won't help me stop
him...I'm afraid....I can't do it by myself ...Daddy.....I can't look out
my window and just watch him do all these terrible things and...and.....do
nothing...so....I'm just going to close the blinds....so I can't see what
he's doing........and I'm going to pretend that it is not happening."

I start to cry.

My husband looks at our nine year old son standing in the window, looking
pitiful and ashamed at his answers to my husbands questions and he tells
him...."Son"

"Yes, Daddy."

"Open the blinds because that man.... he's at your front door..."WHAT DO
YOU DO?"

My son looks at his father, anger and defiance in his eyes. He balls up his
tiny fists and looks his father square in the eyes, without hesitation he
says: "I DEFEND MY FAMILY DAD!! I'M NOT GONNA LET HIM HURT
MOMMY OR MY SISTER, DAD!!! I'M GONNA FIGHT HIM, DAD, I'M GONNA FIGHT HIM!!!!!"

I see a tear roll down my husband's cheek and he grabs my son to his chest
and hugs him tight, and cries..."It's too late to fight him, he's too
strong and he's already at YOUR front door son.....you should have stopped
him BEFORE he killed his wife. You have to do what's right, even if you
have to do it alone, before......it's too late." my husband whispers.

THAT scenario I just gave you is WHY we are at war with Iraq. When good men
stand by and let evil happen is the greatest EVIL of all. Our President is
doing what is right. We, as a free nation, must understand that this war is
a war of humanity. WE must remove evil men from power so that we can
continue to live in a free world where we are not afraid to look out our
window. So that my nine year old son won't grow up in a world where he
feels that if he just "closes" that blinds the atrocities in the world
won't affect him. "YOU MUST NEVER BE AFRAID TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT!
EVEN IF YOU HAVE TO DO IT ALONE!"

BE PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN! BE PROUD OF OUR TROOPS!!
BE PROUD OF OUR PRESIDENT SUPPORT THEM!!! SUPPORT AMERICA!!
SO THAT IN THE FUTURE OUR CHILDREN WILL NEVER HAVE TO CLOSE THEIR BLINDS...."

These activists may be alone or in a gathering.....most of us don't know how to react to them. When you come upon one of these people, or one of their rallies, here are the proper rules of etiquette:

1. Listen politely while this person explains their views. Strike up a conversation if necessary and look very interested in their ideas. They will tell you how revenge is immoral, and that by attacking the people who did this to us, we will only bring on more violence. They will probably use many arguments, ranging from political to religious to humanitarian.

2. In the middle of their remarks, without any warning, punch them in the nose.

3. When the person gets up off of the ground, they will be very angry and they may try to hit you, so be careful.

4. Very quickly and calmly remind the person that violence only brings about more violence and remind them of their stand on this matter. Tell them if they are really committed to a nonviolent approach to undeserved attacks, they will turn the other cheek and negotiate a solution. Tell them they must lead by example if they really believe what they are saying.

5. Most of them will think for a moment and then agree that you are correct.

6. As soon as they do that, hit them again. Only this time hit them much harder. Square in the nose.

7. Repeat steps 2-5 until the desired results are obtained and the idiot realizes how stupid of an argument he/she is making.

8. There is no difference in an individual attacking an unsuspecting victim or a group of terrorists attacking a nation of people. It is unacceptable and must be dealt with. Perhaps at a high cost. We owe our military a huge debt for what they are doing for us and our children. We must support them and our leaders at times like these. We have no choice. We either strike back, VERY HARD, or we will keep getting hit in the nose.

Lesson over, class dismissed

Actually the situation is like this. First let's say a person is depressed and cuts their wrist(the arm being a middle eastern country). The person leaves this wound untreated and continually picks at it, and prevents a scab from forming and only makes it worse(symbolizing a country's continued pestering and killing of another country's populace). Pretty soon the person's body can't take it anymore and a serious infection comes into play(the infection is equal to terrorist attacks). The infection hurts like a fucker and the person is in serious pain, so the person takes a knife and stabs himself on the shoulder because it's kinda connected to wrist right?(symbolizing the war in Iraq). Now does that make sense to you? Hell no it doesn't. If you would have left them alone in the first place we wouldn't be in the bullshit we are in now. Now because of a government's dumbass decisions they have endangered an entire country and now we have NO choice but to defend our existence, however we shouldn't attack everything that moves! That's not right. Not every person in the middle east is a terrorist. Think about the everyday citizens who have NO terrorist connections. Just walking down the street minding their own business and suddenly bombs blow the shit out of anyone and anything that's dear to them. If you were in their shoes wouldn't YOU want revenge? I think so.

Because being against the war in Iraq is pretty much supporting a mad dictator, who killed his own people, slaughtered the kurds, completely took away all the women's rights, had the capability if not already had weapons of mass destruction, was a viable threat to the region and to the U.S., and needed to be taken out of power and a democracy instituted.

Any evidence that he was actually mad? If so then the whole 'trying him for his crimes' malarky seems kind of pointless: he could just plead insanity...

BE PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN! BE PROUD OF OUR TROOPS!! BE PROUD OF OUR PRESIDENT SUPPORT THEM!!! SUPPORT AMERICA!! SO THAT IN THE FUTURE OUR CHILDREN WILL NEVER HAVE TO CLOSE THEIR BLINDS...."

The war on Iraq was all about the rights of Americans to keep their window furnishings open?

BE PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN! BE PROUD OF OUR TROOPS!!
BE PROUD OF OUR PRESIDENT SUPPORT THEM!!! SUPPORT AMERICA!!
SO THAT IN THE FUTURE OUR CHILDREN WILL NEVER HAVE TO CLOSE THEIR BLINDS....

As I have said before, and I shall continue to say it again. What about the other countries that the US had ignored for YEARS. What about the other countries that have equal or worse conditions? What about Other countries where the people's own government slaughter them? Iraq to Bush isn't about freedom for the people, it's about securing and winning a dick-measuring contest*cough*...I mean legacy.

As I have said before, and I shall continue to say it again. What about the other countries that the US had ignored for YEARS. What about the other countries that have equal or worse conditions? What about Other countries where the people's own government slaughter them? Iraq to Bush isn't about freedom for the people, it's about securing and winning a dick-measuring contest*cough*...I mean legacy.

So because we have failed in the past we should continue to fail now?

So 2 wrongs DO make a Right?

Sorry, nothing we can do now about the past, shall we try to get the future Right now, or continue to dwell on past failures?

Regards,
Gaar

*snip*hella long post filled with poor allegories and over-zealous patriotic bullshit*snip*

*yawn*

So 2 wrongs DO make a Right?
Gaar

EXACTLY the message I'm trying to convey here. EXACTLY. You said it without me ever having to say it, thank you for proving my point. War is never the option, unless it is used as a LAST RESORT. It was SO very wrong for the terrorists to do what they did, and I would spit in their faces for what they did, but you don't go and get revenge in the matter that Bush handled it. Especially on a country that had no ties with our supposidly "main enemy". Two wrongs have never made a right, and never will. Ever. Which is exactly why war needs to be recognized as a bad thing in EVERY situation and avoided by ALL countries, unless the defense of their people or culture hangs in the balance DIRECTLY.

Ok, so let's listen to someone who has "Been there, done that".

*snip for space only*

"Now I want you to stand there and look out the window and see that man
come out of his house with his wife and he has her by the hair and is
hitting her. You see her bleeding and crying. He hits her in the face, he
throws her on the ground, then he starts to kick her to death. Their
children run out and are afraid to stop him, they are crying, they are
watching this but do nothing because they are kids and afraid of their
father. You see all of this son.... what do you do?" "Dad?" "What do you do
son?"

"I call the police, Dad."

"OK. Pretend that the police are the United Nations and they take your
call, listen to what you know and saw but they refuse to help. What do you
do then son?"

To here this is a reasonable analogy. However the last speech by the father is where it all goes wrong. The UN did not refuse to help, or to do anythig. It was very actively trying to sort out the mess left behind after the Gulf war.
This however was not enough to get Bush re-elected, was it?

"Dad, but the police are supposed to help!" My son starts to whine.

"They don't want to son, because they say that it is not their place or
your place to get involved and that you should stay out of it," my husband
says.

"But Dad...he killed her!!" my son exclaims.

"I know he did...but the police tell you to stay out of it. Now I want you
to look out that window and pretend you see our neighbor who you're
pretending is Saddam turn around and do the same thing to his children."
"Daddy...he kills them?" "Yes son, he does. What do you do?" "Well, if the
police don't want to help, I will go and ask my next door neighbor to help
me stop him." our son says.
If we are going to have this as an analogy, what country did Iraq wipe out this time. As a justification of the Gulf War, this section would be OK, but it didn't happen that way. This time, the Iraq war, there was no "murdered" woman there. There were not even the weapons to murder with.

"Son, our next door neighbor sees what is happening and refuses to get
involved as well. He refuses to open the door and help you stop him," my
husband says.

"But Dad, I NEED help!!! I can't stop him by myself!!"

"WHAT DO YOU DO SON?" Our son starts to cry.

"OK, no one wants to help you, the man across the street saw you ask for
help and saw that no one would help you stop him. He stands taller and
puffs out his chest. Guess what he does next son?" "What Daddy?"

"He walks across the street to the old ladies house and breaks down her
door and drags her out, steals all her stuff and sets her house on fire and
then...he kills her. He turns around and sees you standing in he window and
laughs at you. WHAT DO YOU DO?"

"Daddy..." "WHAT DO YOU DO?" Our son is crying and he looks down and he
whispers, "I close the blinds, Daddy." My husband looks at our son with
tears in his eyes and asks him... "Why?"
Now the analogy is completely lost. Iraq had not attacked anyone to provoke the war. The 9/11 attack justified hitting Afghanistan very hard, which was done. Now where is thew bloody nose, the dead woman, the grandmother that is introduced for emotional effect only, in the case of Iraq. In the minds of those in Washington? They are nowhere else.

"Because Daddy.....the police are supposed to help...people who needs
it...
*snip emotional rhetoric with no content*
"Open the blinds because that man.... he's at your front door..."WHAT DO
YOU DO?"

My son looks at his father, anger and defiance in his eyes. He balls up his
tiny fists and looks his father square in the eyes, without hesitation he
says: "I DEFEND MY FAMILY DAD!! I'M NOT GONNA LET HIM HURT
MOMMY OR MY SISTER, DAD!!! I'M GONNA FIGHT HIM, DAD, I'M GONNA FIGHT HIM!!!!!"
Is or was Saddam Hussein on the doorstep of the USA? NO. Was he threatening to come to your house and beat you up, maybe. Here is the critical point. If you believe that, then maybe for you the war is justified. If however you do not believe that Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a threat to the USA, then the Iraq war was not justified. (Each war has to be considered on its own merits. There is no general case.)

THAT scenario I just gave you is WHY we are at war with Iraq. When good men stand by and let evil happen is the greatest EVIL of all. Our President is doing what is right. We, as a free nation, must understand that this war is a war of humanity. WE must remove evil men from power so that we can continue to live in a free world where we are not afraid to look out our window. So that my nine year old son won't grow up in a world where he feels that if he just "closes" that blinds the atrocities in the world won't affect him.
"YOU MUST NEVER BE AFRAID TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT! EVEN IF YOU HAVE TO DO IT ALONE!"
Evil is a subjective and psychological term. No, we should not tolerate evil, but first show me this evil, prove to me that any war that you are about to launch is not more evil than that that is being fought. Evil is the killing of people, the rape and torture of civilians, the orphaning and maiming of children. All these have ocurred as a result of the Iraq war. Now if the evil removed was greater than the evil caused, then fine, you can't make omlettes without breaking eggs. However if it was not, then being opposed to this war is the only reasonable ethical position.
This does not mean wanting the USA to lose the war, but means not wishing to have this happen again and a desire to punish. politically at the next election, those responsable for taking the USA into this war.

BE PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN! BE PROUD OF OUR TROOPS!! BE PROUD OF OUR PRESIDENT SUPPORT THEM!!! SUPPORT AMERICA!! SO THAT IN THE FUTURE OUR CHILDREN WILL NEVER HAVE TO CLOSE THEIR BLINDS...."
Pointless jingoistic shouting thisa last part. Support the troops. Support your country, fine, if that means supporting somewhere where there can be a genuine open and free debate about the validity of the war, without the "patriots" shouting "traitor" at the first sign of questioning whether the Iraq war should ever have hapened. If it means supporting a system where only one point of view is permissable, NO. I will not suport that form of idealogical terrorism.

Having answered your post. I would point out that you did not address the fact that the USA apears to be hitting the other guy, not the one that hit it. Why is there no war against the Saudis? That would have been hitting the terrorists. Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism attacks on the USA, the Saudis do.

Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism attacks on the USA, the Saudis do.
heh don't worry, pretty soon there will be plenty of Iraqi terrorists popping up, because of the war, whom can then be used to justify that war

Having answered your post. I would point out that you did not address the fact that the USA apears to be hitting the other guy, not the one that hit it. Why is there no war against the Saudis? That would have been hitting the terrorists. Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism attacks on the USA, the Saudis do.

Interesting that you would assert such a thing, given the post you just critiqued did in FACT talk mostly about what the "Bad Guy" was doing to others and not what he did to the person observing the Acts...

So how does this analogy NOT address the ACTS that Iraq was doing which provoked the War?

Regards,
Gaar

EDIT: I take it you are now withdrawing those comments?

I've tried to warn people before without success, but I'll try again.

Uratania II is a tar-baby that tries to trap you into inane discussions.

Rational arguments are responded to with irrationalities and thinly veiled insults until Uratania gets bored or you ignore his/her/its posts. Then Uratania goes off to irritate in another thread.

Don't fall for it.

[BTW, Urantia II, I almost admire they way your puppet lures people in to these circular arguments. You've had more success than I would have thought possible.]

BE PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN! BE PROUD OF OUR TROOPS!!
BE PROUD OF OUR PRESIDENT SUPPORT THEM!!! SUPPORT AMERICA!!
SO THAT IN THE FUTURE OUR CHILDREN WILL NEVER HAVE TO CLOSE THEIR BLINDS...."

...Nor take off their blinders.

Iraq the greatest evil of all? More so than Sudan? More so than North Korea?

What a charming load of crap.

If it's an email you recieved I'm going to assume that it is a work of fiction. Must such things are. I recieved two very Neo-Con friendly emails supposedly written originally by Robin Williams and George Carlin, two liberals.

I'd say it goes more like this.

"Pretend our house is the Unites States, and you're president Bush. Now pretend that every house on the street is another country."
"I'm pretending daddy."
"Now see those guy coming out of that house, and waving goodbye to that other guy."
"I see them daddy."
"They tell everyone in the neighborhood that they're roommates, but they're fuckin' each other every night with crisco all over their assholes..."
"Eeewww, why're you tellin' me that."
My husband then smacked our son across the mouth and said, "'cause no son o' mine's gonna be a goddamn queer! Now what're you gonna do about them queers in our neighborhood?!"
"Call the police?" said my son starting to whimper.
"Boy you stop cryin' now 'fore I really give you somethin' ta' cry 'bout! Now we can't call the police, because the Supreme Court just said that what those perverts are doin' is legal. Now son, the Supreme Court is the UN and the police are the UN peace keepers. And them queers are Iraq. So now that the man of the house is gone we're gonna go over their and bust their shit up and start sprayin "Sodomites go home to hell!" all over their house until the sissy boy comes out and offers us money to go away."
"But won't he call the police daddy?"
"No son, 'cause even though bein' a Sodomite son of Satan is legal, they know that they're gonna have a miserable time in this town if it comes out that they're gay, so they'll give us whatever we want to keep quiet. The "man" might call the cops, but that's why we wait 'till he left. You see, the "man" is Russia, and Russia gets more money from us than they get from Iraq, so they're not gonna make us too angry."
"But we're not just takin' their money daddy, we wrecked their government."
"Yes son, but I'm explaining the first gulf war that I went and got Gulf War syndrome in, which doesn't exist," my husband said in a fit of coughing, "we're gonna keep harassing that couple for the next 10 years until they either move out of town or give me an excuse to go over their and kick the livin' shit out of both of them."
"What're they gonna do Daddy."
"Oh, that don't matter, I suppose I'll tell people that they fucked ya up the ass."
"Eeeewww."
"DON"T YOU PUSS OUT ON ME BOY. You'll let'em fuck you up the ass if that's what it takes to get them out of town. You see son, you're Kuwait."

EDIT: I take it you are now withdrawing those comments?

No, I am waiting for you to address my reply to your point 8.

I've tried to warn people before without success, but I'll try again.

Uratania II is a tar-baby that tries to trap you into inane discussions.

Rational arguments are responded to with irrationalities and thinly veiled insults until Uratania gets bored or you ignore his/her/its posts. Then Uratania goes off to irritate in another thread.

Don't fall for it.

[BTW, Urantia II, I almost admire they way your puppet lures people in to these circular arguments. You've had more success than I would have thought possible.]

Puppet? I use no Puppet...

If the Mods are willing, you may have them check my IP Address for multiple Accounts...

I am more than willing to express my Opinion without using some "Puppet" to get anything started. In case YOU haven't noticed there is plenty getting started around here WITHOUT any help from me.

I am merely adding my two cents where I deem appropriate, much like you do...

Do you have a problem with that?

Regards,
Gaar

I've tried to warn people before without success, but I'll try again.

Uratania II is a tar-baby that tries to trap you into inane discussions.

Rational arguments are responded to with irrationalities and thinly veiled insults until Uratania gets bored or you ignore his/her/its posts. Then Uratania goes off to irritate in another thread.

Don't fall for it.

[BTW, Urantia II, I almost admire they way your puppet lures people in to these circular arguments. You've had more success than I would have thought possible.]

I can just use him to make the points I want to, can't I? He won't argue against them, thereby giving them more strength than if I were just to post them anyway.

He doesn't bother me with the mindless insults, so I just take advantage.

*snip*

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=404171&page=1&pp=15

Care to have that discussion on "analogies" you wanted to have?

Regards,
Gaar

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=404171&page=1&pp=15

Care to have that discussion on "analogies" you wanted to have?

Regards,
Gaar

Can you address the fact that the USA is pounding on the wrong guy please. Or are you simply going to admit that the Iraq war is not justified?

I can just use him to make the points I want to, can't I? He won't argue against them, thereby giving them more strength than if I were just to post them anyway.

He doesn't bother me with the mindless insults, so I just take advantage.

Argue against someone saying that the UN wasn't going to do anything?

Argue against someone saying that "women and children" weren’t dieing in Iraq?

Argue that someone denies that Iraq had invaded their neighbor and burned their Oil Fields?

Argue that someone wants to argue semantics about the term "Evil" and won't agree that a tyrant that use WMD's on HIS OWN People is "Evil"...

No, why would I want to even validate such nonsense with a response?

Regards,
Gaar

Can you address the fact that the USA is pounding on the wrong guy please. Or are you simply going to admit that the Iraq war is not justified?err why is he the wrong guy? it wasn't Saddam who was flagrantly defying the UN? It wasn't Saddam who was trying to start up WMD programs? It wasn't Saddam paying martyrs to kill US citizens?

Can you address the fact that the USA is pounding on the wrong guy please. Or are you simply going to admit that the Iraq war is not justified?

Try READING that Thread that is linked in the post you replied to and YOU will get a good idea of why I believe we are doing the Right thing in Iraq...

Regards,
Gaar

First off, I would like to put out there that I have been US Navy for the past 6 years. I've served in both recent wars. I have no problem with people opposed to war. I'm not a real big fan of it myself. If you do not like a particular war, or war in general, go out and protest. By all means, go out and speak your mind. I just have two peices of advice.

1) Protest peacefully. Wave your banners, shout your slogans. March on Washington(or the applicable capital of your home country) and let your voice be heard. But, use restraint, the law enforcement officers that will be at these events are not there to stop you. Coming from a long line of Chicago cops, they really don't care what you are protesting, as long as you do not become a threat to the health and saftey of those around you. Don't allow your protest to become a riot. It will only undermine the cause you have taken up.

2) Please respect the Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Airmen of your country. Trust me, they don't want to be there, and they want to come home. Every one of them signed up to preserve the freedoms of their home. Ridiculing them is sick and wrong. The protesters of the Viet-Nam war may have been right, but they forever overshadowed their cause by the shameful treatment of those scared kids that came home from war. No one should ever be shunned for military service. Even if they do get roped into an unpopular war.

In closing, "I may not agree with the words you say, but I shall defend to the death, your right to say them"

Thank you.

Can you address the fact that the USA is pounding on the wrong guy please. Or are you simply going to admit that the Iraq war is not justified?

Don't bother. I've had this argument with him before. All that he knows how to do is point to badly written articles that don't actually do a decent job of defending the war and he'll pretend that if you are still against the war after reading it then you just didn't understand it.

He doesn't know how to defend the war himself because he's highly skilled in the art of doublethink and is capable of believing that the war is both indefensable and unquestionable.

Ok, so let's listen to someone who has "Been there, done that".

This was in an email I received from a friend on the matter...

The other day, my nine year old son wanted to know why we were at war. My
husband looked at our son and then looked at me. My husband and I were in
the Army during the Gulf War and we would be honored to serve and defend
our Country again today. I knew that my husband would give him a good
explanation.

My husband thought for a few minutes and then told my son to go stand in
our front living room window. He told him: "Son, stand there and tell me
what you see?"

"I see trees and cars and our neighbor's houses." he replied.

"OK, now I want you to pretend that our house and our yard is the United
States of America and you are President Bush."

Our son giggled and said "OK."

"Now son, I want you to look out the window and pretend that every house
and yard on this block is a different country" my husband said.

"OK Dad, I'm pretending."

"Now I want you to stand there and look out the window and see that man
come out of his house with his wife and he has her by the hair and is
hitting her. You see her bleeding and crying. He hits her in the face, he
throws her on the ground, then he starts to kick her to death. Their
children run out and are afraid to stop him, they are crying, they are
watching this but do nothing because they are kids and afraid of their
father. You see all of this son.... what do you do?" "Dad?" "What do you do
son?"

"I call the police, Dad."

"OK. Pretend that the police are the United Nations and they take your
call, listen to what you know and saw but they refuse to help. What do you
do then son?"

"Dad, but the police are supposed to help!" My son starts to whine.

"They don't want to son, because they say that it is not their place or
your place to get involved and that you should stay out of it," my husband
says.

"But Dad...he killed her!!" my son exclaims.

"I know he did...but the police tell you to stay out of it. Now I want you
to look out that window and pretend you see our neighbor who you're
pretending is Saddam turn around and do the same thing to his children."
"Daddy...he kills them?" "Yes son, he does. What do you do?" "Well, if the
police don't want to help, I will go and ask my next door neighbor to help
me stop him." our son says.

"Son, our next door neighbor sees what is happening and refuses to get
involved as well. He refuses to open the door and help you stop him," my
husband says.

"But Dad, I NEED help!!! I can't stop him by myself!!"

"WHAT DO YOU DO SON?" Our son starts to cry.

"OK, no one wants to help you, the man across the street saw you ask for
help and saw that no one would help you stop him. He stands taller and
puffs out his chest. Guess what he does next son?" "What Daddy?"

"He walks across the street to the old ladies house and breaks down her
door and drags her out, steals all her stuff and sets her house on fire and
then...he kills her. He turns around and sees you standing in he window and
laughs at you. WHAT DO YOU DO?"

"Daddy..." "WHAT DO YOU DO?" Our son is crying and he looks down and he
whispers, "I close the blinds, Daddy." My husband looks at our son with
tears in his eyes and asks him... "Why?"

"Because Daddy.....the police are supposed to help...people who needs
it....and they won't help....You always say that neighbors are supposed to
HELP neighbors, but they won't help either...they won't help me stop
him...I'm afraid....I can't do it by myself ...Daddy.....I can't look out
my window and just watch him do all these terrible things and...and.....do
nothing...so....I'm just going to close the blinds....so I can't see what
he's doing........and I'm going to pretend that it is not happening."

I start to cry.

My husband looks at our nine year old son standing in the window, looking
pitiful and ashamed at his answers to my husbands questions and he tells
him...."Son"

"Yes, Daddy."

"Open the blinds because that man.... he's at your front door..."WHAT DO
YOU DO?"

My son looks at his father, anger and defiance in his eyes. He balls up his
tiny fists and looks his father square in the eyes, without hesitation he
says: "I DEFEND MY FAMILY DAD!! I'M NOT GONNA LET HIM HURT
MOMMY OR MY SISTER, DAD!!! I'M GONNA FIGHT HIM, DAD, I'M GONNA FIGHT HIM!!!!!"

I see a tear roll down my husband's cheek and he grabs my son to his chest
and hugs him tight, and cries..."It's too late to fight him, he's too
strong and he's already at YOUR front door son.....you should have stopped
him BEFORE he killed his wife. You have to do what's right, even if you
have to do it alone, before......it's too late." my husband whispers.

THAT scenario I just gave you is WHY we are at war with Iraq. When good men
stand by and let evil happen is the greatest EVIL of all. Our President is
doing what is right. We, as a free nation, must understand that this war is
a war of humanity. WE must remove evil men from power so that we can
continue to live in a free world where we are not afraid to look out our
window. So that my nine year old son won't grow up in a world where he
feels that if he just "closes" that blinds the atrocities in the world
won't affect him. "YOU MUST NEVER BE AFRAID TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT!
EVEN IF YOU HAVE TO DO IT ALONE!"

BE PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN! BE PROUD OF OUR TROOPS!!
BE PROUD OF OUR PRESIDENT SUPPORT THEM!!! SUPPORT AMERICA!!
SO THAT IN THE FUTURE OUR CHILDREN WILL NEVER HAVE TO CLOSE THEIR BLINDS...."


Sorry, I can't resist butting into this lovely discussion here...

But that is just the biggest pile of shit. Let's note some key details: in the story, the father makes the Saddam roleplay model out of his neighbor. It's an example, and of course the kid doesn't wind up shooting his neighbor in this story. (Too bad, it would have been funny.)

But it's an interesting choice of example. And of course, how close it is from "Saddam/neighbor" to "Saddam-supporting neighbor" or "Saddam-lookalike neighbor."

Second the other roleplay presented by our loving father in the story: pretend every house on the street is a different country.

Hmm, we're certainly NOT promoting xenophobia here...

And the moral of the story is what, kill people? Hate your neighbor, kill your neighbor. So much for that whole Bible thing, so much for living in accordance with the will of God Himself, Creator of All Things, Father, Son, Holy Ghost eh? Luckily the people who throw this tired online 'story' around don't read the Bible or try to do as Jesus would.

What would Jesus do, anyway? Teach his children to make-believe that his neighbor is a murdering tyrannical dictator, so we can make-believe that he's killing your mom, so we can make-believe you should sign up for the fucking US Marines? So you must always do what "is right?"

I hate to use the religious angle but I am left with no choice when people bust out that kind of pseudo-spiritualistic moral spewfest.

And you know, if Saddam was really such a threat the father wouldn't have had to paint him as a rampaging dictator killing his family directly. He could have just explained it instead of that roleplay game they did (which was, now that I think about it, creepy - I think the father, who was unable to control his emotions and was weeping just because he was able to manipulate his kid's heartstrings so easily, might have been a child molester. The hypothetical police should check this guy out.) because kids aren't stupid.

But it wouldn't have worked then. Or would it?

"Well, there's this guy... he rules a country on the opposite side of the Earth, and... well you remember when the towers collapsed and lots of people were killed? ... his country harbored the people who did that, so.. what? oh, harboring is to have certain people inside the country who kill people like that. And when the leader knows about it. So anyway, Saddam wants to kill and rape your mom and sister. How do you feel now?"

"I WANT TO KILL SADDAM!"

"Son, you make me proud. You are obviously pro-war, too."

Son: "Wait, war what war?"

"Well, we can't just get Saddam. We have to make sure that no one LIKE HIM can become LIKE HIM."

"Jesus Christ Dad, how many people could there be LIKE HIM?"

"Millions. Tens of millions." (Father looks up populations of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Libya, Palestine, Egypt, Lebanon... and Cuba, California and all Blue States) "Billions maybe."

"We're going to have to use nukes or something... that's horrible."

"No, we'll just occupy their countries one by one and force our more peaceful, loving and neighborly way of life upon them. And we kill anyone who looks like Saddam, because they want to kill and rape your mum and sis. Got it?"

"Isn't war bad though? Though shallt not kill and all?"

"No son. The Bible only forbids MURDERING, and according to our God-blessed legal system killing is not forbidden, only murdering. Murdering is when Saddam kills your mum and sis, but killing is what we must do - and what Jesus would do - to prevent that!"

"OK I got it!"

"I love you, son! And Jesus loves you too. And now, I'm going to molest you."

Thank you.

No, THANK YOU!

And here is a little Poem, a bit out of Season but I believe still germane...



A Christmas Poem


TWAS THE NIGHT BEFORE CHRISTMAS,
HE LIVED ALL ALONE,
IN A ONE BEDROOM HOUSE
MADE OF PLASTER AND STONE.

I HAD COME DOWN THE CHIMNEY
WITH PRESENTS TO GIVE,
AND TO SEE JUST WHO
IN THIS HOME DID LIVE.

I LOOKED ALL ABOUT,
A STRANGE SIGHT I DID SEE,
NO TINSEL, NO PRESENTS,
NOT EVEN A TREE.

NO STOCKING BY MANTLE,
JUST BOOTS FILLED WITH SAND,
ON THE WALL HUNG PICTURES
OF FAR DISTANT LANDS.

WITH MEDALS AND BADGES,
AWARDS OF ALL KINDS,
A SOBER THOUGHT CAME THROUGH MY MIND.

FOR THIS HOUSE WAS DIFFERENT,
IT WAS DARK AND DREARY,
I FOUND THE HOME OF A SOLDIER,
ONCE I COULD SEE CLEARLY.

THE SOLDIER LAY SLEEPING,
SILENT, ALONE,
CURLED UP ON THE FLOOR
IN THIS ONE BEDROOM HOME.

THE FACE WAS SO GENTLE,
THE ROOM IN SUCH DISORDER,
NOT HOW I PICTURED
A UNITED STATES SOLDIER.

WAS THIS THE HERO
OF WHOM I'D JUST READ?
CURLED UP ON A PONCHO,
THE FLOOR FOR A BED?

I REALIZED THE FAMILIES
THAT I SAW THIS NIGHT,
OWED THEIR LIVES TO THESE SOLDIERS
WHO WERE WILLING TO FIGHT.

SOON ROUND THE WORLD,
THE CHILDREN WOULD PLAY,
AND GROWNUPS WOULD CELEBRATE
A BRIGHT CHRISTMAS DAY.

THEY ALL ENJOYED FREEDOM
EACH MONTH OF THE YEAR,
BECAUSE OF THE SOLDIERS,
LIKE THE ONE LYING HERE.

I COULDN'T HELP WONDER
HOW MANY LAY ALONE,
ON A COLD CHRISTMAS EVE
IN A LAND FAR FROM HOME.

THE VERY THOUGHT BROUGHT
A TEAR TO MY EYE,
I DROPPED TO MY KNEES
AND STARTED TO CRY.

THE SOLDIER AWAKENED
AND I HEARD A ROUGH VOICE,
"SANTA DON'T CRY,
THIS LIFE IS MY CHOICE;

I FIGHT FOR FREEDOM,
I DON'T ASK FOR MORE,
MY LIFE IS MY GOD,
MY COUNTRY, MY CORPS."

THE SOLDIER ROLLED OVER
AND DRIFTED TO SLEEP,
I COULDN'T CONTROL IT,
I CONTINUED TO WEEP.

I KEPT WATCH FOR HOURS,
SO SILENT AND STILL
AND WE BOTH SHIVERED
FROM THE COLD NIGHT'S CHILL.

I DIDN'T WANT TO LEAVE
ON THAT COLD, DARK, NIGHT,
THIS GUARDIAN OF HONOR
SO WILLING TO FIGHT.

THEN THE SOLDIER ROLLED OVER,
WITH A VOICE SOFT AND PURE,
WHISPERED, "CARRY ON SANTA,
IT'S CHRISTMAS DAY, ALL IS SECURE."

ONE LOOK AT MY WATCH,
AND I KNEW HE WAS RIGHT.
"MERRY CHRISTMAS MY FRIEND,
AND TO ALL A GOOD NIGHT."

This poem was written by a Marine stationed in
Okinawa Japan. The following is his request. I think it is
reasonable.....

PLEASE. Would you do me the kind favor of sending
this to as many people as you can? Christmas will be
coming soon and some credit is due to our U.S. service
men and women for our being able to celebrate these
festivities. Let's try in this small way to pay a tiny bit of
what we owe.

Make people stop and think of our heroes, living and
dead, who sacrificed themselves for us. Please, do
your small part to plant this small seed

err why is he the wrong guy? it wasn't Saddam who was flagrantly defying the UN? It wasn't Saddam who was trying to start up WMD programs? It wasn't Saddam paying martyrs to kill US citizens?

Saddam was not actually defying the UN when the war started, however that is not the point.
The point that Urantia II made was that when someone hits you (9/11 implied) you have to hit them back. I accept this, and it is a justification for Afghanistan, but not for Iraq. Go to war with the Saudis if you want to hit back for 9/11.

On your last point, no Saddam may have been paying martyrs to attack Israel, not to attack the USA, but there is only hearsay for this, no hard evidence anywhere.
There has been no ewvidence that Saddam was trying to start up a WMD program. Even if he had been, this is not justification to go to war, unless you think that the UN should declare war on the USA for its WMD programs.

These are all beside the point anyway. As you believe these things, then for you the war is justified, you are pro-war in this case. I do not believe these accusations and for mew the war is not justified. I am anti-war in this case.
What we are doing here is what I am advocating. Discussing the issues behind the war. The reasons for the war. If by doing this we can avoid some unnecessary future wars then it has been worth while. Equally if by doing this we can avoid apeasing when we should act it will have been worth while.
Each case has to be judged on its merits, but against a background of an agreed code of acceptable behaviour by Nations.

No, why would I want to even validate such nonsense with a response?


You would not, as of course no-one actually made those points. Try answering the ones that were made.

*snip*

Yeah, I guess you missed the REAL Moral... Help they neighbor, before their problems become YOURS!

Regards,
Gaar

Yeah, I guess you missed the REAL Moral... Help they neighbor, before their problems become YOURS!

Regards,
Gaar

And what is the USA doing for Mexico or Canada by invading a country on the other side of the world?

You would not, as of course no-one actually made those points. Try answering the ones that were made.

Why? So you can change the subject and say that my arguments are invalid because of whatever?

Again, if you wish to see answers to your questions, they have ALREADY BEEN ANSWERED in the Thread I linked to here.

If not, YOU are the one choosing to not address points ALREADY MADE. I don't care to re-post them here simply because YOU can't be bothered to go read them.

Regards,
Gaar

Goodnight then (it is 03:19 here). It is funny how a touch of sarcastic humour makes you explode into a raging case of capitals. I hope you get better soon. :D

And what is the USA doing for Mexico or Canada by invading a country on the other side of the world?

Probably helping their Tourism, if you believe all the People saying that Terrorists are going to their Country so they can sneak into America over the Borders...

Ohh, I believe we are also setting an example for other "Rogue Nations" which a few have already responded to. That should help make things a bit safer for ALL the World's Nations not just Canada and Mexico, shouldn't it?

Regards,
Gaar

I would SERIOUSLY like to know why some people think this way. This shall be amusing to hear the answer.
Because they're blinded by patriotism, which is such a spurious concept.

Yeah, I guess you missed the REAL Moral... Help they neighbor, before their problems become YOURS!

Regards,
Gaar

I guess I did! See you could have just said THAT, instead of posting this incredibly lame, incredibly obvious attempt at manipulating emotions (also called propaganda, or mindless spam - take your pick).

And then we could have argued it. I could say that Iraq is not really the US's neighbor by any stretch of the imagination. I could say that we got Saddam and there's nothing in that story that 'moralizes' the need to occupy a foreign country with military troops and act as their police, and government, and master and moral superior.

And what again is our 'neighbors' problems again? The brutal Iraqi dictator? Let's hear some scenarios in which Saddam Hussein could have conquered the United States and made their problems ours. Or would we have a brutal Iraqi dictator rise up in the US, and by making sure there are no more Iraqis we could prevent that from happening? :D

Or are you just going to type another one line response - a headliner, perhaps, to accompany your mindless propaganda spewing?

I guess I did! See you could have just said THAT, instead of posting this incredibly lame, incredibly obvious attempt at manipulating emotions (also called propaganda, or mindless spam - take your pick).

And then we could have argued it. I could say that Iraq is not really the US's neighbor by any stretch of the imagination. I could say that we got Saddam and there's nothing in that story that 'moralizes' the need to occupy a foreign country with military troops and act as their police, and government, and master and moral superior.

And what again is our 'neighbors' problems again? The brutal Iraqi dictator? Let's hear some scenarios in which Saddam Hussein could have conquered the United States and made their problems ours. Or would we have a brutal Iraqi dictator rise up in the US, and by making sure there are no more Iraqis we could prevent that from happening? :D

Or are you just going to type another one line response - a headliner, perhaps, to accompany your mindless propaganda spewing?
An aside- With regard to the situation in Lebanon, Bush said that "they could not have democratic elections as long as there were foreign forces in their country." *coughcough* So... Is IRAQ democratic or not?

And then we could have argued it. I could say that Iraq is not really the US's neighbor by any stretch of the imagination. I could say that we got Saddam and there's nothing in that story that 'moralizes' the need to occupy a foreign country with military troops and act as their police, and government, and master and moral superior.

And what again is our 'neighbors' problems again? The brutal Iraqi dictator? Let's hear some scenarios in which Saddam Hussein could have conquered the United States and made their problems ours. Or would we have a brutal Iraqi dictator rise up in the US, and by making sure there are no more Iraqis we could prevent that from happening? :D

Or are you just going to type another one line response - a headliner, perhaps, to accompany your mindless propaganda spewing?

When you can make a Bomb in your Country and bring it to mine and kill hundreds, if not thousands, then what you do in your Country is very much my business, no matter if you are a neighbor "across" the street or "down" the street a bit.

He doesn't have to "conquer" us to become a problem for us, does he?

Regards,
Gaar

When you can make a Bomb in your Country and bring it to mine and kill hundreds, if not thousands, then what you do in your Country is very much my business, no matter if you are a neighbor "across" the street or "down" the street a bit.

He doesn't have to "conquer" us to become a problem for us, does he?

Regards,
Gaar
psst....
Iraq didn't have that capability. but the US does. Should any other country pre-emptively invade the US then?

When you can make a Bomb in your Country and bring it to mine and kill hundreds, if not thousands, then what you do in your Country is very much my business, no matter if you are a neighbor "across" the street or "down" the street a bit.

He doesn't have to "conquer us to become a problem for us, does he?

Regards,
Gaar

Well, statistically speaking he really does. How many people died in that terrorist attack, about 3000? That's nothing. How many bombs would he have to detonate for it to be as much a problem as, say, death by alcohol related car accidents? A lot.

And of course, it was Osama, not the Dictator of Iraq, behind 9/11 but don't let me distract anyone.

Furthermore, you can make a bomb in ANY country, including this one, so I don't see "Iraq can make bombs" as a valid reason for occupation.

Well, statistically speaking he really does. How many people died in that terrorist attack, about 3000? That's nothing. How many bombs would he have to detonate for it to be as much a problem as, say, death by alcohol related car accidents? A lot.

So now you would like to relate deliberate Acts of War to accidents?

And of course, it was Osama, not the Dictator of Iraq, behind 9/11 but don't let me distract anyone.

Something about "And the Nations who Harbor them" that YOU don't understand?

Furthermore, you can make a bomb in ANY country, including this one, so I don't see "Iraq can make bombs" as a valid reason for occupation.

Something about a "Rogue Nation" you didn’t get?

Regards,
Gaar

psst....
Iraq didn't have that capability. but the US does. Should any other country pre-emptively invade the US then?

If they believe us to be a "Rogue Nation"... :rolleyes:

They are sure WELCOME TO TRY! :D

Far be it from me to tell another Nation how they should act in their own best interest!

:p

Regards,
Gaar

Do all the Anti-Iraq-war people have amnesia? After 9/11 Bush said we will search and destroy all terrorists and all supporters of terrorists.

Which means will we destroy not only Osama and Al-Qaeda, but ALL terrorists. Saddam was a terrorist by definition whether you like it or not.

If that's not good enough for you, try this.

Saddam violated eighteen United Nations resolutions that alone was enough for military action without anything else.

The U.N. did fail us!!!

After Saddam defied U.N. Resolution 1441, the United Nations refused to confront Saddam militarily. The reasons were primarily political and economic. As we now know, France, Russia, and Germany were making millions of dollars of blood money doing business with Saddam in the "Oil for Food" scandal. The U.S.A. and Britains complained bitterly, but to no avail.

And people still wonder why those countrys aren't helping the U.S., there's the proof. Why do so many people forget this? It's a proven fact.

By the way I don't like anti-war people or anyone outside the U.S. military that try to tell me how to do my job. I enjoy doing my job, and I enjoy killing the enemy. So let me get this straight to the peace hippies that say "Bring the troops home". I don't want to go home! I'll go home when my job in Iraq is done.

That's my two cents, have fun with it.

Posted by the Satanic Priest, Lord Medivh

So could you say that it is good to be "Anti-War" but still see the logic in fighting if the enemy lands 20 minutes away? Hippocritical as it sounds, it might make more sense to defend your ideals on your home turf than try to impose your ideals in someone else's domain. Would that agree with your statement?
I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here. Can you elucidate for me a bit?

The war on Iraq was all about the rights of Americans to keep their window furnishings open?
Yes! You finally get it. We attack other countries and kill and rape their women and children to assure the right of all Americans to keep their window blinds open!

Goodnight then (it is 03:19 here). It is funny how a touch of sarcastic humour makes you explode into a raging case of capitals. I hope you get better soon. :D
And by trying to bait him, all you're doing is destroying your own creditiblity. Sigh.

Because they're blinded by patriotism, which is such a spurious concept.
Why do you say that? How is patriotism a "spurious concept?"

I guess I did! See you could have just said THAT, instead of posting this incredibly lame, incredibly obvious attempt at manipulating emotions (also called propaganda, or mindless spam - take your pick).

And then we could have argued it. I could say that Iraq is not really the US's neighbor by any stretch of the imagination. I could say that we got Saddam and there's nothing in that story that 'moralizes' the need to occupy a foreign country with military troops and act as their police, and government, and master and moral superior.

And what again is our 'neighbors' problems again? The brutal Iraqi dictator? Let's hear some scenarios in which Saddam Hussein could have conquered the United States and made their problems ours. Or would we have a brutal Iraqi dictator rise up in the US, and by making sure there are no more Iraqis we could prevent that from happening? :D

Or are you just going to type another one line response - a headliner, perhaps, to accompany your mindless propaganda spewing?
It's just an analogy, you twit! All analogies break down when viewed through a microscope. Why are you heaping scarcasm on this one poster? Are you scared of what he says?

Well, statistically speaking he really does. How many people died in that terrorist attack, about 3000? That's nothing. How many bombs would he have to detonate for it to be as much a problem as, say, death by alcohol related car accidents? A lot.

And of course, it was Osama, not the Dictator of Iraq, behind 9/11 but don't let me distract anyone.

Furthermore, you can make a bomb in ANY country, including this one, so I don't see "Iraq can make bombs" as a valid reason for occupation.
So now 9/11 is "nothing?" How ... interesting.

I enjoy doing my job, and I enjoy killing the enemy.

If you enjoy killing people then I for one pity you. Sometimes you have to end anothers life for the sake of protecting others I agree, but to ENJOY doing it? No, that is simply wrong.

It's just an analogy, you twit! All analogies break down when viewed through a microscope. Why are you heaping scarcasm on this one poster? Are you scared of what he says?

Sarcasm is applied in liberal doses to Urantia II because he never, ever responds to the points made, and consistently resorts to emotive rather than rational arguments. Read this thread, paying attention to the points made against his arguments, and his response to them.

There is no need to use even mildly derrogative terms here, the subject matter is inflamatory enough on its own, without adding the risk of what could be perceived to be ad hominem attacks as well.

As to being scared of what he says. If you examine his posts you will find that he never actually says anything himself other than to deny any need to respond to valid points. It is all copy and pasting from other sources, sometimes cited, other times not.

And by trying to bait him, all you're doing is destroying your own creditiblity. Sigh.

How, sir, was a relatively polite goodnight, trying to bait him? Explain yourself gadzooks. :eek:

The only people who think it's bad are pro-war people, and they think it's bad because the anti-war people disagree with them.

I'm pro-war, and if you're anti-war, it doesn't bother me.

As the oil continues to dry up, there's going to be more and more war, so fasten your seatbelts.

As to being scared of what he says. If you examine his posts you will find that he never actually says anything himself other than to deny any need to respond to valid points. It is all copy and pasting from other sources, sometimes cited, other times not.

Valid Points as YOU have determined, or someone else?

And please feel free to examine all of the posts of mine you wish, and comment right back...

Just as I will feel free to do with YOURS or ANY OTHERS I CHOOSE to respond to.

Do YOU have a problem with that?

Regards,
Gaar

Because being against the war in Iraq is pretty much supporting a mad dictator, who killed his own people, slaughtered the kurds, completely took away all the women's rights, had the capability if not already had weapons of mass destruction, was a viable threat to the region and to the U.S., and needed to be taken out of power and a democracy instituted.
1.) Being against war in Iraq is not supporting of Hussein, but it is supporting the civilians who suffer endlessly under war - even more so than under Hussein
2.) Hussein did not take away women's rights. In fact, due to him being a secular ruler, women in Iraq had more rights back than than they do now.
3.) Hussein had no WMDs, period.
4.) Hussein was not a threat to anyone, not to the region and certainlynot to the US
5.) He did not have to be taken out of power. The alternative, as you see, is a country on the brink of civil war with rampant terrorism and a religiously motivated government in place soon. It's short-sighted people like you who lead to this quagmire and it's short-sighted people like you who will make sure that world war 3 will happen.

I would SERIOUSLY like to know why some people think this way. This shall be amusing to hear the answer.

People who believe war has absolutely no place in the world are just stupid. Thats far too simplistic a view to take. Contary to the popular song, war is not good for nothing. War can be an excellent engine of change for example the American Civil war brought an end to slavery, the Second World War ended the threat of Facisim in Europe. Wars have their use in places. To say that all war is wrong, period is far to simplistic. I can understand individual cases (anti-Iraq war, anti-WW1) but not a general overview.

I just think Pro War people aren't in touch with reality. People are DYING, real people. It's not a fucking game, you're fucking around with actual human being's LIVES! May they be our own soldiers or the enemies, they are all human beings and to waste their lives on some bullshit political agenda is VERY VERY shameful. War in itself is so useless and dumb, it just makes me sick to think about people who's only counter-argument to the anti-war crowd is "you're a bunch of pussies." Fuck that shit.

Pro-war to the point of using force at the first oppotunity is not only morraly abhorent but quite stupid too

Anti-war to the point of not using force in any situation whatsoever is stupid

Force does have its uses, its just a case of knowing when it is/isnt approprite.

war is crap, 99.999% of the time war is wrong, they'd have to be utterly exceptional circumstances for me to say that war was justified. There is always another way, like not sticking your big nose where it doesn't belong, like the affairs of another nation and culture

war is crap, 99.999% of the time war is wrong, they'd have to be utterly exceptional circumstances for me to say that war was justified. There is always another way, like not sticking your big nose where it doesn't belong, like the affairs of another nation and culture

Yes, everyone in the world should have followed Chamberlain's lead, and surrendered to Hitler at the first opportunity. It would have spared the lives of everyone except the Jews and the Slavs.

Ein Deutscher']1.) Being against war in Iraq is not supporting of Hussein, but it is supporting the civilians who suffer endlessly under war - even more so than under Hussein
That explains the Iraqi's that were starving under the "Oil-for-Food" scam.(more on this later)

2.) Hussein did not take away women's rights. In fact, due to him being a secular ruler, women in Iraq had more rights back than than they do now.
Something tells me that someone who would execute their minister of Agriculture during a meeting(shot him to death with a pistol) wasn't a big supporter of human rights, much less women's rights.

3.) Hussein had no WMDs, period.
I'll make you a deal, you go to Iraq and spend time searching that country, while car bombs, suicide bombers, and insurgents take shots at you. I'm sure you'll be "searching" for WMDs and not "covering your ass"!

4.) Hussein was not a threat to anyone, not to the region and certainlynot to the US
Invade Iran
Invade Kuwait
Banned UN inspectors for 4 years from inspecting Iraq's WMD sites(yeah, he had NOTHING to hide):rolleyes:
Yeah, not a threat to anyone

5.) He did not have to be taken out of power.
Of course not! That way France, Germany and Russia could make their money under the table with the "Oil-for-Food" Scam which in turn cause the deaths of millions of Iraqi's(starvation!). Of course, France(Rwanda/1996, Cote d'Ivorie2004- ), and Russia(Chechnya1936- ) both have a history of genocide. As for Germany, I won't waste the time....

The alternative, as you see, is a country on the brink of civil war with rampant terrorism and a religiously motivated government in place soon. It's short-sighted people like you who lead to this quagmire and it's short-sighted people like you who will make sure that world war 3 will happen.

Well then according to "far-sighted" people like you, we should be just seconds away from WW 3!

How, sir, was a relatively polite goodnight, trying to bait him? Explain yourself gadzooks. :eek:
This: "It is funny how a touch of sarcastic humour makes you explode into a raging case of capitals. I hope you get better soon." ... was sarcastic and had little or nothing to do with "a relatively polite goodnight."

So now you would like to relate deliberate Acts of War to accidents?


Sure, as far as damage to the society as a whole is concerned. If an accident is far more destructive it is more important - assuming destruction to society is important to you.

Maybe it isn't, since you seem so willing to heap it on societies that aren't your own.


Something about "And the Nations who Harbor them" that YOU don't understand?

Quit with the 'something about [insert flippancy here] you don't understand?' already - that's fucking annoying, stupid and only shows that you have no capacity to do anything but throw out 2 cent phrases as if they were actual arguments.

A quotation from someone who agrees with your argument is not an argument.


Something about a "Rogue Nation" you didn’t get?

See, like that. Someone classified some nation as "rogue?"

And...?

t's just an analogy, you twit! All analogies break down when viewed through a microscope. Why are you heaping scarcasm on this one poster? Are you scared of what he says?


Why you calling me a twit? You scared of what *I* say?

And it takes two to tango. Why don't you throw your stupid questions at my friend here, who - conviniently enough - also has problems understanding analogies.

[quote=Eutrusca]
So now 9/11 is "nothing?" How ... interesting.[/qote]

As far as body count, damage to society? Pretty much, yes. Americans are a bunch of whining assholes if you think 3000 dead is some kind of shock horror.

For example, in 2001 (http://www.unitedjustice.com/stories/stats.html) 42,116 people died due to automobile accidents.

But I don't see you advocating a war on all the things - and there are many which are preventable - which contribute to that. I guess their deaths aren't as important to you? Because what, they died in 'accidents?' Way to disrespect the dead - favor 3000 dead people, fight hard for their justice, completely ignore 42,000 dead with a limpwristed offhand dismissal because they weren't killed by (drums bass roll) TERRORISTS!

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so, especially now that you are reduced to quoting me in order to express how much you dislike me and what I'm saying. Which is funny because all I've said is that 3000 is about 0.001% of the US population.

Unless you disagree, and you think terrorism is a major cause of death in the US, I would say you know I'm right but will never admit it. Because to do so would be to acknowledge that the terrorism demon is really not about to grab your ankles in the middle of the night, and you're not ready for that.

This: "It is funny how a touch of sarcastic humour makes you explode into a raging case of capitals. I hope you get better soon." ... was sarcastic and had little or nothing to do with "a relatively polite goodnight."

Sarcasm, as I understand it, is a way of getting people to see what they are doing. I do have a problem with Urantia II's generally excessive capitalisation, that up to that point he had successfully avoided.
I was going to bed, it being about 03:20 when I posted, so I politely said good night, and pointed out that he had reverted to capitalisation as a tactic, and implied that it was not a good one.

Where was the insult, the lack of consideration that would have had a justifiable effect on by credibility. Nowhere to be seen. One, should not criticise others for things that one does oneself, Eutrusca. If you had never been sarcastic, then I could have accepted your criticism without any loss of respect. However, given the hypocrisy of this criticism, combined with the habit that I am seeing more clearly of yours of making little snide comments, without contributing to the debate, means that I have lost respect. I am beginning to see Zeppistan's point.

What exactly are we talking about here?
I'm not stupid, I just haven't been paying attention.

Santa Barbara.

Calm down a little.

You know that you are right, don't let them rattle you into a flame war. All that will happen is that you will be blamed along side them.

Personally, I don't think it is a necessarily "bad thing" to be anti-war. However, I do think that most people are "anti-war" for purely political reasons, and tend to listen to those that, historically, are against any thing that is preferred by the majority. Especially, and almost exclusively, left-leaning liberal hacks that believe the way to peace is through apeasement.
Do you really think that there are a majority out there that like war? I believe there is a very, very small minority that would want war without seeking out other methods of conflict resolution.
Everyone on the "anti-war" side, seems to think, or so it appears to me, that their way is the only way. Where would we be as a country, if there wasn't war to free us from our captors? I can bet there were "anti-war" people then, also!
No, it's not wrong to be "anti-war", but when all else fails, sometimes, war is the only clear choice.

What exactly are we talking about here?
I'm not stupid, I just haven't been paying attention.

Several things all at the same time.

The main discussion, which is a bit quiet at the moment, is about why people who are anti-war are so heavily smeared.

There is a secondary discussion with Urantia II as the main protagonist on one side, with myself and Sant Barbara on the other, which has been more about the Iraq war in particular, and somewhat about posting styles.

Then there is Eutrusca, who has just entered the thread spitting out "words of wisdom" at random, and for once managing to annoy me with his hypocrisy.

OK

I assume you mean pacifism. Not really anything, but there are times when government must go to war. The alternative is appeasement, which has been prooven to be a very dangerous philosophy.

Appeasement is NOT the only alternative.

Ahimsa, anyone? Us Americans are all so proud that we beat the British in the Revolutionary War.

Guess what? India beat them without firing a single shot.

Appeasement is NOT the only alternative.

Ahimsa, anyone? Us Americans are all so proud that we beat the British in the Revolutionary War.

Guess what? India beat them without firing a single shot.

Yes, I'm sure that always works with everyone. Chamberlain tried that with Hitler, and it worked so well, didn't it?

I'm sure that al-Qaeda would love that method, too. You do know what their goal is?

psst....
Iraq didn't have that capability. but the US does. Should any other country pre-emptively invade the US then?


Pre-emptive???!!! Are you serious? How many UN resoultions does it take to get to the center of a tootsie-roll tootsie pop?

Your answer would undoubtedly be......as many as it takes.
My answer would be.....ONE!

What was the US answer? fourteen, fifteen...

Give it a rest all of you whining, liberal, cry-babies....

Yes, I'm sure that always works with everyone. Chamberlain tried that with Hitler, and it worked so well, didn't it?

I'm sure that al-Qaeda would love that method, too. You do know what their goal is?

Someone obviously has no idea what Ahimsa is.

Give it a rest all of you whining, liberal, cry-babies....

One of those words doesn't fit, guess which one?

War breeds terrorism thats why the war on terror can never work succesfully. The more people you bomb, shoot and kidnap, the more everyone else hates you.

Someone obviously has no idea what Ahimsa is.

Yes, I do. And it relies on something to be present in your enemy in order to be effective.

If it is part of his plan to kill you in any event, you'll just end up dead.

Millions of Jews placidly went to their deaths, cooperating with their enemy right up until the moment they were shoveled into an oven.

You can't stop an avowed goal of conquering all of humanity and subjugating them under Osama's vision of Islam (and killing out of hand any who reject it, no matter how peacefully) without raising your hand to stop it.

The British, as it might seem, placed some value on human life and human dignity. It was this that allowed Gandhi and ahimsa to be effective. It would be completely ineffective against an opponent who placed no value on human life and no value on human dignity.

Bush?

Well, it does make sense.

1. killed his own people - bush executed more criminals in his time as governor of Texas than any other state had in years before. He's also sent 1500 + American soldiers to their deaths.

2. Slaughtered the Kurds - I would also add the Shi'ites to this list. But this is the elder Bush. US promised to support an uprising in '91, failed to do so. Guess who died?

3. Took away women's rights. - trying to limit abortion.

4. Has WMD's - I think we can prove the US has nukes. But where are Iraq's?

5. Viable threat to the US (and region) - Bush has done more to anger the world that just about any other national leader since Hitler.

6. Needs to be taken out of power and democracy instituted - after an unprecedented expansion of governmental power to peek into our private lives, after running the most secrative administration in the history of the US, after running a foreign policy that only encourages hatred of the US, after being cocky enough to think we don't need the world, I'd say its time to remove him from power and re-instate democracy in the US.


remeber - regime change begins at home.
Once again a left-leaning, whining liberal has shown their wonderful infusion of government education.
By the way, did any of your teachers actually TEACH you about the political process. Here, I'll refresh your memory...
There are checks and balances so one person or one party cannot have absolute power. Although Bush is our elected leader...yes, he really was elected by a MAJORITY...he has no power without the support of the Congress. That would be the House and Senate. I believe your beloved Kerry voted for the war...wait, no he didn't...wait, yes he did...That wacko Kennedy probably voted for it also, but I really don't care what he does. How can a state be so blatently stupid to continue to vote such a person into office, liberal or otherwise.
Life is more than love and peace and all of that drug induced bullshit...
It takes more than a village to run a nation...! :headbang:

Bush?

Well, it does make sense.

1. killed his own people - bush executed more criminals in his time as governor of Texas than any other state had in years before. He's also sent 1500 + American soldiers to their deaths.

False. Bush never presided on a single case. The judges gave them the death penalty.
False. The soldiers are in Iraq and Afghanistan to do a JOB. How about the 3000 in WTC? Whom do we lay their deaths on? :rolleyes:


2. Slaughtered the Kurds - I would also add the Shi'ites to this list. But this is the elder Bush. US promised to support an uprising in '91, failed to do so. Guess who died?

Does not apply to this Bush, he was not President

3. Took away women's rights. - trying to limit abortion.

False. Roe v. Wade still stands. That you can't kill the kid in the 3rd trimester anymore? Please.

4. Has WMD's - I think we can prove the US has nukes. But where are Iraq's?

The idea was that Iraq was giving WMDs to terrorists/hit on innocent people. Can you show me where the US has ever deployed nukes/bio agents against a nation where it did not have troops fighting?

5. Viable threat to the US (and region) - Bush has done more to anger the world that just about any other national leader since Hitler.

There's a big difference between annoying the French and Germans and invading Kuwait. And you've failed to note those parts of the world that are not angered. Like the 99.5% of any population that ISN'T protesting at any given time.

6. Needs to be taken out of power and democracy instituted - after an unprecedented expansion of governmental power to peek into our private lives, after running the most secrative administration in the history of the US, after running a foreign policy that only encourages hatred of the US, after being cocky enough to think we don't need the world,

Huh? (I've yet to see ANY of this...)

I'd say its time to remove him from power and re-instate democracy in the US.

If you remove him from power as you charge, you're REMOVING democracy! :rolleyes:

remeber - regime change begins at home.

Yes. And with people like you, I thank God for the Electoral College.

War breeds terrorism thats why the war on terror can never work succesfully. The more people you bomb, shoot and kidnap, the more everyone else hates you.

Aha. And the reason we're not all speaking German or Japanese is ?

Well, are you anti-this war, or pacifist? Because I don't really see anything all that bad with being anti-this war, but pacifism is idiotic and unrealistic. The only place you get with pacifism is beat up by other people.

But if you are anti-this war, then it means you just made a value judgement and didn't find this war to be worth it.

Yes, I do. And it relies on something to be present in your enemy in order to be effective.

If it is part of his plan to kill you in any event, you'll just end up dead.

Millions of Jews placidly went to their deaths, cooperating with their enemy right up until the moment they were shoveled into an oven.

You can't stop an avowed goal of conquering all of humanity and subjugating them under Osama's vision of Islam (and killing out of hand any who reject it, no matter how peacefully) without raising your hand to stop it.

The British, as it might seem, placed some value on human life and human dignity. It was this that allowed Gandhi and ahimsa to be effective. It would be completely ineffective against an opponent who placed no value on human life and no value on human dignity.

The British put little to no value on the lives of the Indian workers under their control, as is evidenced by the fact that General Dyer, the man responsible for what amounts to the execution of 1500+ Indians in a matter of hours wasn't even given a real discharge from the British military, just shifted back to England.

The reasons ahimsa worked in India were twofold:

1. The idea of passive resistance; not working, protests, etc; removed the functionality of the colony. Ghandi hit the British where it hurt: their economy.

2. The British continually looked bad to the rest of the world as they perpetuated things like beating men who refused to fight back, killing people who never attacked them and never would, etc

As long as we live in a generally compassionate world, ahimsa will always work. Not until we live under a system that has already gained complete control of the media and the people's minds will it cease to function, at which point it will only be our own fault it happened.

Appeasement is NOT the only alternative.

Ahimsa, anyone? Us Americans are all so proud that we beat the British in the Revolutionary War.

Guess what? India beat them without firing a single shot.

India was COLONIZED, not SETTLED by the English.

At the time of the American Revolution, Philadelphia was the second largest city in the British Empire. The US colonies made 1 in 3 British ships. Moreover, almost the ENTIRE colonial population was made up of English colonists, or foreigners that assimilated in a generation or three.
India? Outnumbered the British by thousands to one.

Further, the British were much stronger in the 1770s than the 1940s. They hadn't lived through two World Wars.

The British KNEW that they'd have to spin off the colonial system after WW2. There was just no way to keep the Empire working.

To compare the two is to compare apples to veal cutlet.

The reasons ahimsa worked in India were twofold:

1. The idea of passive resistance; not working, protests, etc; removed the functionality of the colony. Ghandi hit the British where it hurt: their economy.

al-Qaeda does not want to subjugate us. They want to kill as many of us as possible, in a short a time as possible, in as horrific a way as may be necessary to accomplish the killing. Osama is not interested in any economy.

2. The British continually looked bad to the rest of the world as they perpetuated things like beating men who refused to fight back, killing people who never attacked them and never would, etc

al-Qaeda believes that they look good if they kill more people - you'll notice that the people in the WTC attack weren't fighting anyone. They died at their desks. al-Q doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks of them - they only believe in their cause - which is to kill everyone else who is not like them - everyone who does not believe what they believe.

As long as we live in a generally compassionate world, ahimsa will always work. Not until we live under a system that has already gained complete control of the media and the people's minds will it cease to function, at which point it will only be our own fault it happened.

Won't work against al-Qaeda, and it never will.

India was COLONIZED, not SETTLED by the English.

At the time of the American Revolution, Philadelphia was the second largest city in the British Empire. The US colonies made 1 in 3 British ships. Moreover, almost the ENTIRE colonial population was made up of English colonists, or foreigners that assimilated in a generation or three.
India? Outnumbered the British by thousands to one.

I'll abandon the example if it really comes into much debate, it isn't worth keeping it through the effort, but I should ask you this:

Were the American colonists living in Britian? Or were they living in America?

al-Qaeda does not want to subjugate us. They want to kill as many of us as possible, in a short a time as possible, in as horrific a way as may be necessary to accomplish the killing. Osama is not interested in any economy.

Actually, they very well might care about economy. An arguement can be made that the WTC attacks weren't about killing people, they were about damaging our economy, 'cause they sure as hell did that quite well.


al-Qaeda believes that they look good if they kill more people - you'll notice that the people in the WTC attack weren't fighting anyone. They died at their desks. al-Q doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks of them - they only believe in their cause - which is to kill everyone else who is not like them - everyone who does not believe what they believe.

Come on, you've got to be smarter than this. Purely ideological leaders never last long as military leaders. In fact, they rarely ever achieve that particular end. There are always background political reasons for their conflict, the rhetoric you hear from them is only to stir up their constitutes.

What UBL really wants is for our troops to leave the KSA and to drop support for Israel.

What better way to achieve our own ends that destroy his rhetoric? I've posted my solution to the whole problem a few times in the past. I've been decryed as a hippie pacifest moron and several less savory names. I really don't care.

When it comes down to it, war is the easy way out. Armed conflict, of course, will never be erased from human existance, but the perpetuation of a conflict between two governments that forces two men who never knew each other and never did any wrong to the other, two men who, under different circumstances, might have become friends, to kill each other may very well end someday. Trying to get there, in my eyes, is a noble quest.



Won't work against al-Qaeda, and it never will.

It will if you actually put some thought behind it.

pacifism is idiotic and unrealistic. The only place you get with pacifism is beat up by other people.


Heard of Ghandi?

Hmmm. another heated debate!

Wheee!

Heard of Ghandi?

Yes, we've heard of him. That works if your opponent has some shred of civilization in his culture.

If they are intent on genocide, however, you'll just end up the chimney like 6 million Jews.

Yes, we've heard of him. That works if your opponent has some shred of civilization in his culture.

If they are intent on genocide, however, you'll just end up the chimney like 6 million Jews.

I don't intend to say that pacifism works in every single circumstance. The person I was responding to said pacifism as an ideal is 'idiotic and unrealistic'. Pacifism works most of the time.

I don't intend to say that pacifism works in every single circumstance. The person I was responding to said pacifism as an ideal is 'idiotic and unrealistic'. Pacifism works most of the time.

Not against the Taliban. Not against North Korea. Not against al-Qaeda.

You do know what the demand that North Korea has been trying to get the US to agree to?

An unconditional promise that under no circumstances (to include the occupation of South Korea by North Korea) will the US ever attack North Korea.

That would be a violation of UN Resolution 90, if the US were to sign it.

They want us to promise not to attack them so that they may attack at will. They know that otherwise, they cannot successfully attack.

Want to be pacifist there, and sign the agreement?

Heard of Ghandi?


No, I've heard of Mohandas Gandhi, though.

Once again a left-leaning, whining liberal has shown their wonderful infusion of government education.
By the way, did any of your teachers actually TEACH you about the political process. Here, I'll refresh your memory...
There are checks and balances so one person or one party cannot have absolute power. Although Bush is our elected leader...yes, he really was elected by a MAJORITY...he has no power without the support of the Congress. That would be the House and Senate. I believe your beloved Kerry voted for the war...wait, no he didn't...wait, yes he did...That wacko Kennedy probably voted for it also, but I really don't care what he does. How can a state be so blatently stupid to continue to vote such a person into office, liberal or otherwise.
Life is more than love and peace and all of that drug induced bullshit...
It takes more than a village to run a nation...! :headbang:

There are few, if any, functional checks and balances on the federal level now. The Republicans control both the presidency and both houses in Congress, and are talking about removing the Democrats' filibustering option (the last one they have). Meanwhile, the SCOTUS is not a reliable check at all, because 1) it has to wait for a court case and 2) it only opposes the Bush administration on occasion. The Republicans are hellbent on replacing liberal judges with their puppets in the federal courts.

Yeah, checks and balances are great in theory, but they won't work very well when one party controls 2 1/2 of the three branches of government. :rolleyes: (Republicans don't yet control the entire judiciary, but they are close.)

That is why I ALWAYS vote on a split ticket.

The Republicans are hellbent on replacing liberal judges with their puppets in the federal courts.


The Democrats are hellbent on replacing conservative judges with their puppets in the Federal courts (the Ninth Circuit is an example of their success).

Care to say that again? The Democrats used to be far, far better at this game than the Republicans. The only reason they're upset - the Republicans are now doing what they did.

Not against the Taliban. Not against North Korea. Not against al-Qaeda.

You do know what the demand that North Korea has been trying to get the US to agree to?

An unconditional promise that under no circumstances (to include the occupation of South Korea by North Korea) will the US ever attack North Korea.

That would be a violation of UN Resolution 90, if the US were to sign it.

They want us to promise not to attack them so that they may attack at will. They know that otherwise, they cannot successfully attack.

Want to be pacifist there, and sign the agreement?

Not signing the agreement doesn't mean you are not being pacifist. You're only not being pacifist if you actually get involved in a war with them. You don't have to tell them you have no intention to ever get in a war.

Not signing the agreement doesn't mean you are not being pacifist. You're only not being pacifist if you actually get involved in a war with them. You don't have to tell them you have no intention to ever get in a war.

So you agree with Condi Rice's approach to the last letter...

Interesting.

The Democrats are hellbent on replacing conservative judges with their puppets in the Federal courts (the Ninth Circuit is an example of their success).

Care to say that again? The Democrats used to be far, far better at this game than the Republicans. The only reason they're upset - the Republicans are now doing what they did.

And how the hell are they gonna do that? They're lucky to have the Ninth Circuit, because it's practically the only reliable check upon the Republicans they have.

And when did the Democrats control the ENTIRE government? During the Carter years? We both know how that worked :rolleyes:

You completely miss my point. Or more accurately, you take one sentence of mine and utterly ignore the rest of the post. My point, if you recall, was that I do not like it when either party controls the entire government. I don't want the US to become like Mexico was under PRI rule for seventy-odd years. Hell, it's probably just as corrupt already. Did you catch the part where I said I always split my ticket?

So you agree with Condi Rice's approach to the last letter...

Interesting.

What is that?

What is that?
Not signing the agreement. Not telling them we have no intention to ever get in a war. Leaving it all to the UN and North Korea's neighbors, no matter how loudly the North Koreans demand to have bilateral talks with the US alone.

We know that's what they want, which is why we won't discuss it and won't sign it. If they change their tune, there will be something else to talk about.

In the meantime, we haven't attacked North Korea.

I'll abandon the example if it really comes into much debate, it isn't worth keeping it through the effort, but I should ask you this:

Were the American colonists living in Britian? Or were they living in America?

The US colonists were ENGLISH until the Revolution (or, at least, until after the Revolution). The Indians were never English.

So the US colonies were (by modern terms) a Civil War, whereas the Indians (again, by modern terms) were fighting against foreign occupation.

Because being against the war in Iraq is pretty much supporting a mad dictator, who killed his own people, slaughtered the kurds, completely took away all the women's rights, had the capability if not already had weapons of mass destruction, was a viable threat to the region and to the U.S., and needed to be taken out of power and a democracy instituted.

Actually, I've heard that he was quite secular and did relatively little to women's rights. Its Afghanistan and (the US supported) Saudi Arabia that have the truly bad women's right records.

And how the hell are they gonna do that? They're lucky to have the Ninth Circuit, because it's practically the only reliable check upon the Republicans they have.


9th circuit. :eek: I like my Bill of Rights, thanks. (The 9th circuit scares me even more than the thought of a menage a trois with Bette Midler and Rosie O'Donnell.

And when did the Democrats control the ENTIRE government? During the Carter years? We both know how that worked :rolleyes:

The Dems had control of Congress from 1955-1995. (Excluding 1980-1986 for the Senate). Which made for 3 years of Democratic hegemony during the first Clinton term, plus the entire terms of Carter, LBJ, and JFK.

http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0070050-0&templatename=/article/article.html

You completely miss my point. Or more accurately, you take one sentence of mine and utterly ignore the rest of the post. My point, if you recall, was that I do not like it when either party controls the entire government. I don't want the US to become like Mexico was under PRI rule for seventy-odd years. Hell, it's probably just as corrupt already. Did you catch the part where I said I always split my ticket?

I agree. (I am a Connecticut Independent).

9th circuit. :eek: I like my Bill of Rights, thanks. (The 9th circuit scares me even more than the thought of a menage a trois with Bette Midler and Rosie O'Donnell.



The Dems had control of Congress from 1955-1995. (Excluding 1980-1986 for the Senate). Which made for 3 years of Democratic hegemony during the first Clinton term, plus the entire terms of Carter, LBJ, and JFK.

http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0070050-0&templatename=/article/article.html



I agree. (I am a Connecticut Independent).

1) Meh. Extraordinary rendition and Gitmo scare me more than the 9th Circuit because I like my Bill of Rights too.

2) The three years of Dem control under Clinton weren't exactly catastrophic. Vietnam started to escalate under JFK and became a clusterf*ck under LBJ. I ain't gonna bend over backwards to defend the Democrats here. Bottom line: One party control: bad, no matter what the party.

Agreed, which is why the Democratic party needs to get tehir collective heads out of their figurative butt-holes and get in touch with America. Or, even better, resign completely and let the Libertarians take over - at least they are in touch and do what they say they want to.

1) Meh. Extraordinary rendition and Gitmo scare me more than the 9th Circuit because I like my Bill of Rights too.

2) The three years of Dem control under Clinton weren't exactly catastrophic. Vietnam started to escalate under JFK and became a clusterf*ck under LBJ. I ain't gonna bend over backwards to defend the Democrats here. Bottom line: One party control: bad, no matter what the party.

1. GitMo scares me a heck of a lot less than gun control.

2. The Great Society did a whole lot more damage to the economy than Osama Bin Laden could ever hope to have achieve.

EDIT: I agree. It's better when no one party has all the marbles.

Agreed, which is why the Democratic party needs to get tehir collective heads out of their figurative butt-holes and get in touch with America. Or, even better, resign completely and let the Libertarians take over - at least they are in touch and do what they say they want to.

The Dems self destructing won't give the Libertarians much more of a power base.

But you're right. The DEMs need to win the White House in 08' or 12', else they're dead.

Because being anti-war is being anti-American.
And being ever so slightly opposed to American policy, in the eyes of ol' Bush, makes you a terrorist!!

"He's thinking for himself! He must be a terrorist! Quickly send him illegally to Guantanamo Bay!"

..., and are talking about removing the Democrats' filibustering option (the last one they have). .
The threat is real, but the fault would be the democrats - The Republicans have said that they would only pursue this if Democrats abuse it - such as changing precedent and preventing a vote on a qualified judicial candidate. If the Democrats wat to abuse the nuclear option, they will find that the Republicans have a nuclear option of their own. It is probable that the Republicans will have a sixty vote majority in a year anyway, unless the Democrats suddenly wake up and start to care about more than just being obstructionists. (like that'll happen)

Being wholesalely pro or anti anything clouds judgement and leads to bad decisions.

simple enough, no?

The threat is real, but the fault would be the democrats - The Republicans have said that they would only pursue this if Democrats abuse it - such as changing precedent and preventing a vote on a qualified judicial candidate. If the Democrats wat to abuse the nuclear option, they will find that the Republicans have a nuclear option of their own. It is probable that the Republicans will have a sixty vote majority in a year anyway, unless the Democrats suddenly wake up and start to care about more than just being obstructionists. (like that'll happen)

The Democrats tried appeasing Republicans between 9/11 and the 2002 midterm elections, and a lot of good it did them. :rolleyes:

The Democrats tried appeasing Republicans between 9/11 and the 2002 midterm elections, and a lot of good it did them. :rolleyes:
They called that appeasing? Then no wonder they lost. Poor old Tommy D.

Sarcasm, as I understand it, is a way of getting people to see what they are doing. I do have a problem with Urantia II's generally excessive capitalisation, that up to that point he had successfully avoided.
I was going to bed, it being about 03:20 when I posted, so I politely said good night, and pointed out that he had reverted to capitalisation as a tactic, and implied that it was not a good one.

Really?!?!

I guess YOU haven't been READING MY posts then...

Because I USE Caps in almost EVERY ONE and hadn't "up to that point he had successfully avoided", and it is NOT done in an attempt to annoy ANYONE, it is USED to accent my POINT...

And using a "question" after I have made a "statement" means I am looking for a response to the statement. Something about that you don't understand?

It seems when I don't bother to ask, most don't bother to address the point and merely "change" the subject, as YOU have done.

And it bothers ME that YOU continually "change" the subject by pointing out things not "germane" to the DISCUSSION!

But you continue regardless of how I feel, right?

Regards,
Gaar

They called that appeasing? Then no wonder they lost. Poor old Tommy D.

They didn't call it appeasing. I did. And I'm glad Daschle lost, because he was a spineless "leader" who was afraid to do anything to oppose Bu$h. Though I understand representing South Dakota would have something to do with it.

Really?!?!

I guess YOU haven't been READING MY posts then...

Because I USE Caps in almost EVERY ONE and hadn't "up to that point he had successfully avoided", and it is NOT done in an attempt to annoy ANYONE, it is USED to accent my POINT...

I did not say that you had not used capitals, I simply implied that there use in the post I was replying to, when Eytrusca decided to criticise me, was more intense.

OK. Let us look:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8490026&postcount=91 The first post of yours I replied to. How many capitals? two words at the end. Very restrained.

The second post, a monumental cut and paste, this one:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8490057&postcount=94 Here there a fair number of capitals, but a very low percentage of the whole text. I did comment that the last paragraph was exaggerated, did I not.

AS these two constituted the whole of your argument here, your other posts being trolling of a very mild form, I considered your use of capitals on the basis of these two. There are however other examples where your capitalisation is restrained, for example:http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8490339&postcount=112 where there are again only two words gratuitously capitalised.

As to capitalisation helping you get your point across, it doesn't. Speaking for myself it comes across as a child having a temper tantrum and stamping its feet. Others, of course, may disagree with me here.

AS to my changing the subject. I am still awaitng a reply to my response to your point 8. Actually, thinking about it, as your first post has no internal capiutalisation, it seems likely that this too is a cut and paste. This would explain why you do not reply to the questioning of that point as it was not your point to start with, just one someone else made that you wanted us to think was yours. Having thought of that, look what Google turned up: Peace Activist Etiquette (http://www.pasteeaters.com/sick_twisted_jokes/Peace_Activist_Etiquette.asp)
OK

Forget it. You are trolling, and I can not be bothered with someone who is a thief and a liar. Do not plagiarise other peoples work, you idiot.

Because being anti-war is being anti-American.
And being ever so slightly opposed to American policy, in the eyes of ol' Bush, makes you a terrorist!!

"He's thinking for himself! He must be a terrorist! Quickly send him illegally to Guantanamo Bay!"

:rolleyes:

Oy vey.

I assume you mean pacifism. Not really anything, but there are times when government must go to war. The alternative is appeasement, which has been prooven to be a very dangerous philosophy.


gahndi: peace, but no appeasement.


i like the way most of the pro-war people are also christian, despite jesus's teachings of loving your neighbor, forgiving them, and turning the other cheek when you are struck, instead of fighting back.

gahndi: peace, but no appeasement.


i like the way most of the pro-war people are also christian, despite jesus's teachings of loving your neighbor, forgiving them, and turning the other cheek when you are struck, instead of fighting back.

They're only Christian because it's got skilled politicians trying to make it the unifying cultural element, even though we've got network TV already. It's like how all the pagan chieftans after the fall of Rome converted to Christianity. It's just an excuse to pretend that you're better than other people, and that makes it OK to kill them.

These activists may be alone or in a gathering.....most of us don't know how to react to them. When you come upon one of these people, or one of their rallies, here are the proper rules of etiquette:

1. Listen politely while this person explains their views. Strike up a conversation if necessary and look very interested in their ideas. They will tell you how revenge is immoral, and that by attacking the people who did this to us, we will only bring on more violence. They will probably use many arguments, ranging from political to religious to humanitarian.

2. In the middle of their remarks, without any warning, punch them in the nose.

3. When the person gets up off of the ground, they will be very angry and they may try to hit you, so be careful.

4. Very quickly and calmly remind the person that violence only brings about more violence and remind them of their stand on this matter. Tell them if they are really committed to a nonviolent approach to undeserved attacks, they will turn the other cheek and negotiate a solution. Tell them they must lead by example if they really believe what they are saying.

5. Most of them will think for a moment and then agree that you are correct.

6. As soon as they do that, hit them again. Only this time hit them much harder. Square in the nose.

7. Repeat steps 2-5 until the desired results are obtained and the idiot realizes how stupid of an argument he/she is making.

8. There is no difference in an individual attacking an unsuspecting victim or a group of terrorists attacking a nation of people. It is unacceptable and must be dealt with. Perhaps at a high cost. We owe our military a huge debt for what they are doing for us and our children. We must support them and our leaders at times like these. We have no choice. We either strike back, VERY HARD, or we will keep getting hit in the nose.

Lesson over, class dismissed

Funny. But stolen. Here is one example (http://www.pavonews.com/mental_floss/mentalfloss04_03.html). Its more honest to attribute things you copy.

Ok, so let's listen to someone who has "Been there, done that".

This was in an email I received from a friend on the matter...

The other day, my nine year old son wanted to know why we were at war. My
husband looked at our son and then looked at me. My husband and I were in
the Army during the Gulf War and we would be honored to serve and defend
our Country again today. I knew that my husband would give him a good
explanation.

My husband thought for a few minutes and then told my son to go stand in
our front living room window. He told him: "Son, stand there and tell me
what you see?"

"I see trees and cars and our neighbor's houses." he replied.

[snip]

BE PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN! BE PROUD OF OUR TROOPS!!
BE PROUD OF OUR PRESIDENT SUPPORT THEM!!! SUPPORT AMERICA!!
SO THAT IN THE FUTURE OUR CHILDREN WILL NEVER HAVE TO CLOSE THEIR BLINDS...."

Again, stolen. This tripe is all over the internet (http://forums.unitedspinal.org/vetsfirst/default.asp?action=9&read=549&fid=50). This time you not only did not attribute it, but you were openly deceptive about the source -- making it sound like you had received it as an e-mail from a friend whose spouse had served.

Hey, remind me again how Iraq had anything to do with 9/11? Oh, I forgot..that was justifiable lying on the parto f the Administration to get support for the war. I get it now.

Nonviolence is NOT pacifism. Violence and nonviolence are two seperate ways to achieve an end, one claiming the moral highground while the other claims to be justified in their immorality. Pacifism is appeasement. Big difference between all three principles.

Again, stolen. This tripe is all over the internet (http://forums.unitedspinal.org/vetsfirst/default.asp?action=9&read=549&fid=50). This time you not only did not attribute it, but you were openly deceptive about the source -- making it sound like you had received it as an e-mail from a friend whose spouse had served.

Something about it being "in" an email a friend sent that YOU don't understand?

I never said my friend wrote it, just that he sent it to me, right?

Or would YOU like to SAY that I said something that I did not?

Regards,
Gaar

So blindly supporting a president that has bad international poicies, cuts troop funding, and puts our sons, daughters, mother,s fathers, and siblings in an illegal war on false pretenses is the best course of action. I got it now.

Something about it being "in" an email a friend sent that YOU don't understand?

I never said my friend wrote it, just that he sent it to me, right?

Or would YOU like to SAY that I said something that I did not?

Regards,
Gaar

<sigh> I'm not going to debate it. Your intent to decieve was clear.

BTW, you appear to admit you had no knowledge that it was "from someone who as 'Been there, done that.'" Instead, you had just copied it from someone else who was not the original source.

Just so you know I'll be checking your posts for unattributed quotes.

Just so you know I'll be checking your posts for unattributed quotes.

*shudders* :rolleyes:

Please do...

I am most of the time accused of just posting links and copy and paste, without giving my opinion, as if citing something I agree completely with isn't me making a point!?!?

But please do... Or you can even go back through ALL of the posts I have ALREADY posted.

I'm pretty sure I quote Lincoln a LOT, I sure hope I gave him credit everywhere...

Regards,
Gaar

I would SERIOUSLY like to know why some people think this way. This shall be amusing to hear the answer.

we must be like the vikings , huns , mongols. we must raid and pillage and kill everything we see.

"The greatest happiness is to vanquish your enemies, to chase them before you, to rob them of their wealth, to see those dear to them bathed in tears, to clasp to your bosom their wives and daughters"
-GENGHIS KHAN
we must cut off the heads of our enemies as trophies
conquest conquest conquest!!!

all of you who say otherwise are unworthy and spineless.

we must be like the vikings , huns , mongols. we must raid and pillage and kill everything we see.

"The greatest happiness is to vanquish your enemies, to chase them before you, to rob them of their wealth, to see those dear to them bathed in tears, to clasp to your bosom their wives and daughters"
-GENGHIS KHAN
we must cut off the heads of our enemies as trophies
conquest conquest conquest!!!

all of you who say otherwise are unworthy and spineless.

Haha, man they don't make people like Genghis Khan anymore. No wonder he kicked so much ass.