| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/13/2006 11:21:22 PM | Wingedfeet: Usage of the word "war" in the US has usually been very frowned upon. We prefer terms like "Police Action", "Peacekeeping Mission", "Forced Evacuation" ("kidnapping" is more appropriate here usually, like with Aristide in Haiti last year) and "protecting US interests abroad" (like helping the Japanese take Vladivostok in 1918).
The US had over 203 foreign engagements between 1798 and 1995, but only about 9 or 10 have been called "wars". The term "war" insinuates that we meant to fight or might even mean that we were the aggressors. This would never be acceptable to the US propaganda machine in charge of circulating pro US myths and writing history books.
*SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!* | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/14/2006 12:24:27 AM | I'm with World and Longte there......I think we have beaten the issue of whether or not we are at war to death. Like Magnum used to say: "Guys, guys, I don't want to fight over this."
So, can we move on to the causes, underlying agendas - on both sides - and try to have an enlightening debate on what can be done to extricate ourselves from the current mess and get down to fighting the real bad guys????? At least then we will be arguing about something worthwhile. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/14/2006 1:26:06 PM |
I have tried to be civil, but you repeatedly engage in the same style of posting, and it is just laziness. A good example of someone that responds to the actual posts I make would be Dmotz, or Certified...when they attack my opinion they do so by accurately quoting me, not by using the garbage tactics you are so fond of
So Vat you are now telling me, Cert, Dmotz how you would like us to post. I believe, this is still a free country and you have you opinions and we have a right to agree or disagree. With thought posting a two hour rebuttal to you post.
I work from 8 until 5, I am not going to make a comprehensive review of all of your points and counter points for said thread to you elaborate posts.
If three posters are viewing the information in your post the same maybe it is the poster.
However, anyone with the complete opposite view on a subject matter is going view another posters poster from the ideology.
Who is not doing a good job of getting their point across? | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/14/2006 5:20:36 PM | ["That war is justified, Saddams up for trial and all the American hating lib's are coming out showing their support for Saddam"]
First i'd like to say that i'm against the war, i was against the Gulf War, and i was against the retaliation after 9/11 in Afganistan. But in no way daoes that mean that i am; a) liberal, b) support Saddam, c) a terrorist. Saddam was a brutal dictator and deserves be tried for war crimes just as Bush and his war monger buddies deserve to tried for their actions.
It's this black and white thinking that gets us in trouble. And it's done to us on purpose. It's not us against them. Our Christian God is not better than their Moslin God. They are both male definitons of God used to control a population to rape it of it's resources.
It's time to share.
If we spent our war budget on alternative fuels we would even need oil. And we wouldn't need to protect ourselves from ourselves. But that's not the goal of the Bush Addministration is it? They will not negotiate peace. They make money off oil and war. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/14/2006 5:59:12 PM | "Saddam was a brutal dictator and deserves be tried for war crimes just as Bush and his war monger buddies deserve to tried for their actions."
"It's this black and white thinking that gets us in trouble. And it's done to us on purpose. It's not us against them. Our Christian God is not better than their Moslin God. They are both male definitons of God used to control a population to rape it of it's resources."
"If we spent our war budget on alternative fuels we would even need oil. And we wouldn't need to protect ourselves from ourselves. But that's not the goal of the Bush Addministration is it? They will not negotiate peace. They make money off oil and war."
These are all very good points. "Black and white thinking" is definitely at the root of a lot of our present difficulties.
But, be prepared to get a LOT of flack for daring to post such sensible ideas; especially for the alternative fuels idea, which will, no doubt, get you labelled as a tree-hugging, dirt-chomping druid. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/14/2006 7:23:52 PM | lOOK PEOPLE......we are in a war that we either support or not...it is to late to Bash Bush or Clinton or Reagan or anyone else....we have to decide when enough is enough...
we all have very different opinions on this subject and I am glad we have a place to express our views. I do think that all the harsh words towards each other and our different views are getting us nowhere. We have some people in here who just like to stir the pot....And you know who you are...I say grow up and discuss the problems in an adult manner and stop the name calling and baiting.
We have conspiracy theoryist abound in here...war for money ect....get a grip!
I supported this war in the beginning and I still support it! I served 12 years in the Army....I may be biased...but we can not just walk away ...not yet..
I would however like to see the US out of Iraq in the next 12 months if not sooner. The only problem is Iran! If we leave to sson and the new Iraqi Army is not ready...Iran will invade as soon as we are gone....Then we have to go back and go to war with them...Not a good thing right now! But, with Iran proceeding with their Nuke program...we may be there sooner than we think! | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/14/2006 9:28:42 PM | hey thanks grog, i love trees, they give us oxygen. and i'd rather eat dirt than mad cow. looking forward (or is that backward?) to lots of flack. but i hope i don't need one of those jackets. (flack)
i like clay mixed with my sand and lots of organic matter. Think i'll be able able to find some fresh water, like out of a clean lake to wash it down?
wage peace | |
|
| |
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/14/2006 10:12:43 PM | "If we leave to sson and the new Iraqi Army is not ready...Iran will invade as soon as we are gone....Then we have to go back and go to war with them..."
Hey dmotz, old pal, please enlighten me.
There's one thing that really puzzles me: just where in the rule book does it say that the U.S. HAS to go in and try to referee disputes everywhere else in the world? Why not just let the parties involved fight/work it out between themselves? Seems to me that unless a situation involves an IMMEDIATE threat to the continental U.S., then the U.S. could just as easily stay out of it.
In the above mentioned case, how, exactly, would an Iranian invasion of Iraq be seen as an immediate threat to the U.S.? | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/14/2006 11:22:15 PM | Xmilitary,
Do you suffer from some kind of reading problem. I noted that Dmotz, and Cert respond to what I actually write, and DO NOT put words in my mouth like you do. Cert and Dmotz disagree with me 9 out of 10 times, but when they do disagree, it is done in a manner that accurately reflects my opinion
Your most recent response just futher illustrates you laziness when reading somebodies opinion. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/15/2006 7:23:48 AM | Vat: Need to chill out this is a dating site forum not a debate in the US Senate.
Insults directed at me will not change my position or how I read your post. You may not say thing directly put people can read between the lines.
Example
I can say I think America and its people are great but that lame ass they got running their country I disagree with.
Indirectly I just said why are most Americans so stupid to elect such and idiot and that is the way I will interrupt that.
When you confront liberals with what they are actually saying they get upset and say oh I an not against the troops or Americans.. Yeah Right.
I am glad George Bush went to invasion/ campaign to protect American lives | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/15/2006 7:30:37 AM |
In the above mentioned case, how, exactly, would an Iranian invasion of Iraq be seen as an immediate threat to the U.S.?
Well we don't hang our allies out to dry!
Germany and Japan were BAD BAD BAD. We kicked the shit out of them, rebuilt them, etc. Now they are our ALLIES. If russia had invaded germany or NO Korea invaded japan, we would HELP OUR ALLIES | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/15/2006 7:40:03 AM |
Why not just let the parties involved fight/work it out between themselves? Seems to me that unless a situation involves an IMMEDIATE threat to the continental U.S., then the U.S. could just as easily stay out
So if Canada was ever under attack by anyone, Canada would not want the US to assist? | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/15/2006 8:48:18 AM | Yeah, Cos everyone hates Canada! If it wasn't for USA's protection, Irans navy would just sail on in.
(If I recall correctly, when Canada ( and the world )was really under threat, from the Nazi's the USA did no more than sell weapons until they themselves where attacked...Shameful but true.) | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/15/2006 8:53:20 AM | Talk about omens the movie The Siege is about a twenty person terrorist cell blowing up people in America and American has to declare Marshal Law. The History Channel is showing the movie.
Could Holywood prevented the war in Iraq, Hmmm!!
The movie made before 911
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0133952/
However, it is an extreme liberal point of view.
| |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/15/2006 9:11:21 AM |
Yeah, Cos everyone hates Canada! If it wasn't for USA's protection, Irans navy would just sail on in.
So Cos since I have become your cousin,
That is a No.
You would not want the US to intervene and assist Canada if for what ever reason you were attacked. I actually speaking about 2006 and later not 1938 to 1944. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/15/2006 9:33:56 AM | To be honest, If it suited the US, the US would assist, and make sure it took mineral rights or some such benefit from its assistance, if it didnt suit the US, then they would let Canada go at it alone. Much like 1938-1941.
Of course this is just a fanasty. As both are NATO countries no one dare attack any other NATO country. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/15/2006 1:03:55 PM | The American people were made to believe that the United States would have so-called liberated Iraq even if its main products were pickles and bananas and the main energy resourse in the world was in Central Africa. But anyone with a functioning brain knows that is not true, as all Iraqis for example.. Invading Iraq gives the US a critical leverage over its competitors, mainly Europe and Japan. Thats a policy that goes way back to WWII.
So there I just solved the mystery, why did the US invade Iraq.
END OF THREAD | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/15/2006 1:17:06 PM | To be honest, If it suited the US, the US would assist, and make sure it took mineral rights or some such benefit from its assistance, if it didnt suit the US, then they would let Canada go at it alone. Much like 1938-1941. "
slow.....if you honestly knew what you were talking about you would have known that if not for the weapons and supplies the US provided to the UK and Canada before their involvement in WW II the UK would not exist today and Canada would have been on the losing side.... | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/15/2006 2:47:29 PM |
The American people were made to believe that the United States would have so-called liberated Iraq even if its main products were pickles and bananas and the main energy resourse in the world was in Central Africa. But anyone with a functioning brain knows that is not true, as all Iraqis for example.. Invading Iraq gives the US a critical leverage over its competitors, mainly Europe and Japan. Thats a policy that goes way back to WWII.
So there I just solved the mystery, why did the US invade Iraq.
Under Dictator Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi military grew from 180000 to 900000, creating the fourth-largest army in the world. You know there was another dictator whom did this I forgot his name. So if the main products would have been pickles and bananas then maybe he would not have had the resources to threaten the entire Middle East and bully other countries. Saddam got just what he deserved. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/15/2006 3:51:19 PM | | I have to say that I dont support the way the war came about. This was not a strike against terrorism as many top political figures were first calling it, that conflict is with Bin Laden and Al Queida. However the decision was made and now we have a duty to see it through until the end because if we dont it is not Bush who will get the backlash, it is the citizens, it is always the citizens and soldiers that pay in the end. It is us who must reprimand our leaders and make them pay for their poor and selfish decisions. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/15/2006 6:13:10 PM |
I have to say that I dont support the way the war came about. This was not a strike against terrorism as many top political figures were first calling it, that conflict is with Bin Laden and Al Queida.
I suggest you go back and look at the president's words on 911/912 and so on. the target was TERRORISM TO INCLUDE not only al quaida and osama, but ANY NATION that harbors and supports terrorism.
Iraq did | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/15/2006 6:25:29 PM |
suggest you go back and look at the president's words on 911/912 and so on. the target was TERRORISM TO INCLUDE not only al quaida and osama, but ANY NATION that harbors and supports terrorism.
Well if this is so then why are they not invading the other nations that are harbouring terrorists??? Dont make me laugh, we all know why they are in Iraq. The search for Bin Laden has not been on the forefront and he more or less spit right in their faces, so to speak. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/15/2006 6:31:06 PM | The definition of terrorism under the patriot act is SO BROAD, that we should be invading EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY on this earth.
Bush should also take a good hard look in the mirror before deciding who the real 'bad guy' is, and realize that evil commited by american blood is JUST as evil as middle-eastern.
I don't see us stomping into Isreal, North Korea, MANY African countries that commit terrible acts on their own people ---
But NO, Bush's definition of terrorist is VERY broad, yet he remains selective. Doesn't add up to me.
xobella | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 1/16/2006 2:13:46 AM | You don't get it yet Bella? This war is about:
1. OIL
2. POWER
3. MONEY
4. ISRAEL
- not necessarily in that order. | |
|
Home
login 
