|
Post by no name on May 5, 2004 13:10:18 GMT -5
Who can't handle the facts? You dispute the facts as stated about "Palestinian" people and the history of the area; you seem to have chosen to buy into the propaganda that supports or seeks to excuse the actions of suicide/terror bombers in their mission to intentionally kill innocent people, while placing most (if not all) of the blame for this on Israel and the U.S. Not surprising. You provided comments from the anti-war website and opinion letters/discussions. You didn't just indicate your opinion of me being "stubborn" -- you said: "I do know that you are not going to change your mind. 2x2s very seldom do. Their dogmatic dependence and stuborness are in fact due to their psychological profile."You don't think these are degrading insinuations? I've news for you: they are. Many (if not most) of your posts towards me have contained derrogatory comments with respect to my supposed lack of knowledge (according to you), my psychological make-up (according to you), the fact that I fellowship in home meetings, and that I choose to homeschool my children. Once more your erroneous assumptions rear their head when you make claims like "somebody who never changes his/her mind"; you do not know me personally -- how can you presume to make such an absurd claim, simply because I do not buy into your arguments? I wonder -- do you ever change your mind with regard to the very hostile attitude you have towards the U.S. and its positions in general? With regard to me "not even [trying] to understand the position of the other", I've already made it pretty clear to you -- my "understanding" or sympathy for some elements in a group of people stops COLD when they resort to such evil tactics as purposefully killing innocent people to promote their "cause". This isn't being "stubborn"; it's recognizing when to draw a line. And your antiwar.com site, and such sources as Michael Moore aren't considered "propaganda"?? ;D ;D Of course, PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein must be a pro-Israeli propaganda tool then. Even he confirmed (as noted in my earlier post) that "The Palestinian people does not exist." Well, then they must naturally be wrong about their info, right? Oh yes, "evidently". Again -- your antiwar.com site, and such sources as Michael Moore aren't considered "propaganda"?? ;D ;D Uh huh. And of course, you think the U.S. Government was behind it. Last time I saw, it was Disney who called this shot on the film, as they have every right to do, since they are a privately controlled company. At any rate -- some new info is coming out about this situation. Seems that Disney had no intention of going with this particular piece of fiction in the first place: They also pointed out they had made it clear a year ago that they wanted no involvement with Fahrenheit 911, which was picked up by Miramax against the wishes of its corporate parent."Lies And Moore Lies"www.marccooper.com/It's not censorship of any kind when a company doesn't want to produce a particular film or book; it's called the free market. Moore is not prohibited from releasing what he wants -- he just may have to find some other distributor or use his own money to do so. (Film companies didn't want to touch Mel Gibson's The Passion; he used his own money and got it done himself.) And whenever Moore's tripe is released, he won't be thrown in jail for his "work" (cough, cough), unlike the common practice of true Fascist/Communist/Dictatorship countries. First off -- the photos that have been circulated don't show anything close to "torture", if this is what you're referring to here. Secondly -- Do you include in this general condemnation of yours what the Iraqi soldiers/fighters did to our own men? Were you as outraged about that? Was the rest of the Arab world as outraged about it? I seriously doubt it . . . . ourworld.cs.com/ADVAMDV/AJ.jpgourworld.cs.com/ADVAMDV/kia5.jpgAgain, what has happened involved a miniscule number of soldiers in our military; their actions are not representative of mandated military policy, so your general and wide-sweeping condemnation of all our soldiers is false. And people quickly forget that torture, murder, rape, and degradation were an everyday occurrance under the brutal rule of Saddam and his sons. Oh, I'm sure his work of fiction will receive some kind of "distinction" -- after all, Anti-Americanism is very in "vogue". But I could care less what type of "distinction" his fictional film gets . . . I don't have much respect for Moore or his distortions.
|
|
|
Post by ha on May 6, 2004 5:07:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ha on May 6, 2004 5:08:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ha on May 6, 2004 5:11:47 GMT -5
The voting system - www.drivingvotes.org/In fact Bush lost the popular vote in 2000. Al Gore received 537,149 more votes than George Bush! Why isn't Al Gore president? The answer is that the United States uses the Electoral College to elect our President rather than a direct popular vote.
|
|
|
Post by ha on May 6, 2004 5:16:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ha on May 6, 2004 5:36:29 GMT -5
The real reason of censoring Moore's film:
From The New York Times
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 6, 2004 10:12:50 GMT -5
Anti-Bush propaganda that attempts to put forth the notion that Bush "lied" about Saddam. Old and erroneous propaganda, which has already been refuted in other posts. And -- ? I realized after 9/11 that a war on terror could last years. Unless there's some other point here, I don't get the gist of this post. The voting system - www.drivingvotes.org/In fact Bush lost the popular vote in 2000. Al Gore received 537,149 more votes than George Bush! Why isn't Al Gore president? The answer is that the United States uses the Electoral College to elect our President rather than a direct popular vote. Why do you keep harping on this? I mean, I know you're really irked that Bush won, but didn't you know that's how we vote here in the U.S.? Not by popular vote, but by the Electorate. The Electoral College system is brilliant. It prevents states like California, Texas, or New York from determining outcomes for the other states, which would be an unbalanced method of voting. At any rate, Gore may not have really won the majority vote, after all (this I've known since 2000), but these facts conveniently get overlooked. * First, absentee ballots in most states are not counted if their number is too small to affect the margin of victory. Reportedly, there are 1 million absentee ballots for president in California that will not be counted since they could not possibly affect the outcome of the Electoral College vote in California. The number is probably more than 1,500,000 votes nationwide. Since absentee ballots tend to be disproportionately Republican, counting these ballots could conceivably reverse Gore's popular vote lead.
* Second, because of the presence of third party candidates Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan, both Gore and Bush received less than a majority of the vote, approximately 48% each. Can someone who wins 48% of the popular vote be considered the popular vote winner solely because he got a few more votes than his opponent? True, Gore received a larger percentage of the popular vote than Clinton did in 1992. (In fact, Clinton is the only U.S. president to be elected twice without receiving a majority of the popular vote either time. His "landslide" victories in the Electoral College were largely due to the presence of third party candidate H. Ross Perot -- Clinton won 43% of the popular vote in 1992 and 49% of the popular vote in 1996.) If Gore's 48% in the 2000 elections qualifies him to be the popular vote winner, how about 28%? This could happen in a 4-way race in which the candidates were fairly evenly divided.
* Third, both Bush and Gore crafted their election strategies to win the Electoral College, not the popular vote. Bush would not have spent so much time and money in West Virginia if did not matter who won West Virginia. He would have spent his money piling up huge majorities in Texas and the South. TruthNews.net Finally: In the meantime, let's not have any more nonsense about who "won" the popular vote. It all depends on what your definition of "won" is, and there are many ballots that will never be counted, anyway. Under our constitution, it's the electoral vote that counts, and the legitimacy of the president winning a majority of the votes of the electoral college should not be undermined by his failure to win the popular vote. If it were, then both Clinton and Abraham Lincoln were not legitimate presidents, since neither received a majority of the popular vote.TruthNews.net And finally -- "The Price of 'PEACE'"dissidentfrogman.8bit.co.uk/price_of_peace.htmlourworld.cs.com/ADVAMDV/iraqwmd.swfThe real reason of censoring Moore's film: I'm supposed to believe the agent of Michael Moore -- someone who has such a proclivity for distorting truth so that it's not recognizable any longer? Nope. But again, Disney has every right to make the decision it did. It is a private company and can choose what they want to produce/distribute -- or not. And once more: Whenever Moore's tripe is released, he won't be thrown in jail (or tortured or killed) for his "work" (cough, cough), unlike the common practice of true Fascist/Communist/Dictatorship countries.
|
|
|
Post by ha on May 7, 2004 2:54:04 GMT -5
The data provided for the WMD were false www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1507921,00.html Where do you get the «erroneous propaganda» argument dear? How this gets along with this . If you are going to war for «several generations» you are not supposed to have peace ... Does the truth hurts you ? I am aware of the Elector system. Bush's brother, the governor of Florida was also aware of it this is why he arranged for thousand of voters to be erased from the voting catalogues and then provoked all the fuss with the counting - in my area of the world this is called «vote tampering» - hardly a democratic process. I do not take the argument that IF votes were counted then PROBABLY ... bla bla bla - elections are about vote counting in the first place. If Americans do not count votes or if they count them erroneously then what kind of democracy they have - ifthis can be called democracy at all I think the New York Times which reported the story is a respectable journal which cross checks information before publication. Unless proved false on the basis of a documented reply their position should be considered true. Of course I understand that you do not LOVE Moore - but the Truth baby?
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 7, 2004 9:48:06 GMT -5
Where do you get the «erroneous propaganda» argument dear? Because the hype that those opposed to Bush/America are trying to promote is that Bush “lied”. Convenient and inflammatory, but not the case at all. So, President Bush conspired with British prime minister Tony Blair, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and the American and British military and intelligence services to fabricate reasons for invading Iraq? Yet no one in this grand conspiracy remembered to plant some anthrax somewhere??
If Bush really fabricated the evidence about WMDs before the war, as some people erroneously claim, wouldn’t he have been deceptive enough to have also planted evidence of WMDs? If President Bush were that sinister, then how hard would it have been to have someone drop a vial of anthrax in a Baghdad basement? Saddam had left the world with no choice but to assume he had them.
The U.S. led coalition stopped fighting the 1991 Persian Gulf War only because Saddam agreed not only to give up his WMD programs, but also to bear the burden of proving that he in fact did so. The burden to prove that Saddam had no WMDs fell upon Saddam himself. Yet, Saddam never came close to satisfying this burden, for he repeatedly lied for a decade about his internal weapons development and even kicked out UN weapons inspectors from Iraq in 1998. We know that Saddam developed and used WMSs because he used them against both the Iranians and the Kurds.
According to the Interim Progress Report delivered to our Congress in October 2003, investigators in Iraq have already located dozens of WMD-related program activities and large amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from UN weapons inspectors, as well as strains of biological organisms that could be used to make biological weapons (these were concealed in a scientist’s home).
And even more recently, we learned from David Kay, former head of the Iraqi Survey Group, that the evidence of Saddam’s intent to acquire WMDs is undisputed! In his January 2004 tesstimony before the U.S. Senate, Kay explained that Saddam, in violation of UN resolutions, had a missile program that he had the potential to incorporate WMDs in their warheads.
According to Kay, UN inspectors had found enormous quantities of banned chemical and biological weapons in Iraq in the 1990s and that Saddam “certainly could have produced small amounts” of chemical and biological weapons. He even went to far as to conclude that Iraq “was in the early stages of renovating [Iraq’s nuclear weapon program].” He also noted that “[t]here’s absolutely no doubt” that, if still in power, Saddam would harbor ambitions to develop and use WMDs. Kay agreed that toppling Saddam was wholly justified and, in doing so, the security of the United States and the world was enhanced.
There is not dispute, even from the “UN” or the Democratic Party here that Saddam possessed and actually used weapons of mass destruction. Our American leftists pretend to care about international human rights yet decided to oppose the military ouster of one of the most tyrannical dictators fo the twentieth century. Consider:
* Saddam executed between 300,000 and one million Iraqis.
* In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam’s son-in-law and chief organizer of Iraq’s WMD program, defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build more.
* Saddam supported terrorism by paying bounties to families of “Palestinian” suicide bombers by trying to assassinate former president George H.W. Bush, and by sheltering known terrorists.
* There is no dispute that Saddam was working to build long-range missiles in violation of U.N. resolutions.
* Even if he did not possess actual WMDs, Saddam’s regime had the capability to provide technical know-how to international terrorists on how to build WMDs.
* Liberals didn’t object to the U.S. launching a preemptive war in Yugoslavia, even though Yogoslavia posed no threat to the U.S. and its leader, Slobodan Milosevic, had engaged in nowhere near the violence, murder and mayhem perpetrated by Saddam. The Unnever approved the U.S. war in Yugoslava and there was never even a suggestion that Milosevic ever possessed or sought WMDs.
* Going to war for the “wrong” reasons does not necessarily make the war unjust. President Abraham Lincoln fought the U.S. Civil war to “preserve the Union” - not to free the slaves. Yet, we now justify the Civil war because it freed the slaves. Likewise, in Iraq, twenty-five plus million Iraqis were freed from the tyranny of Saddam.
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 7, 2004 9:49:19 GMT -5
And look who said the following: "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do." Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.So, ALL of the above people were lying?? But of course not -- only Bush "lied", right? Give me a break.
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 7, 2004 9:52:18 GMT -5
The title (not my own making) was made in sarcasm. Did you even look at the links? And yes – sometimes in order to have peace, war has to be waged, unfortunately. Seems to really bother you . . . That's nice. So why do you keep harping about "majority" vote?? The above allegations are false and made by people desperate to deny the legitimacy of Bush's victory. The voters in Florida had their vote counted -- TWICE! Al Gore became the first presidential candidate in history to concede an election, only to recant. He pleaded to have "every vote count", but immediately after the election he didn't ask for a statewide recount. He only wanted the votes in three heavily Democratic counties to be recounted.
Six million Floridians voted in the 2000 presidential election. All of them had their votes counted more than once: when they were first run through the voting machines, then again when each vote was re-read as required by Florida's automatic recount statute (which kicked in due to the closeness of the election).
Did you know that Gore "won" New Mexico by only 366 votes, but Bush didn't challenge the results? Nor did Bush say anything about close Gore victories in Wisconsin and Oregon. But when when Bush beat Gore in Florida by several hundred votes (confirmed by SEVERAL recounts) all heck broke loose. Bush gained more votes than Gore on election night after the original count, the automatic recount, and after the absentee ballots were counted. Bush was never behind; how, exactly, did he steal an election in which he won the original count and all the recounts??
And if the public believed as a whole that Bush and the Republicans "stole" the 2000 presidential election, then how come the Republicans bucked history in the 2002 midterm election by gaining control of the U.S. Senate, adding to their control of the U.S. House, re-electing Florida governor Jeb Bush by a nineteen-point margin, and electing Katherine Harris to the U.S. Senate?But perhaps you see black helicopters in that as well . . . And I do not buy the fallacious accusations made by those who despise our President and our country. Your comment about the New York Times is pretty ironic -- ;D -- considering the fact that it has not endorsed a Republican presidential candidate since Dwight Eisenhower in the 1950s. The New York Times, in addition to multiple media outlets/organizations have a liberal-leaning bias, and this colors their presentation of facts. Kind of like your dear one, Michael Moore.
|
|
|
Post by ha on May 7, 2004 11:25:05 GMT -5
Sorry dear - only Bush lied AND WENT TO WAR on the basis of this lie. So I consider that you are out of order on this ! Of course - but they have no numbers like the link with the cost of the Iraq war - here it is for you to see again costofwar.com/. I hope you can cope with numbers dear ... Because it is far more «Republican» - i.e. democratic. And if a President gets more «real people» votes he shoudl be more prudent and do not start a war (in fact two if you consider Afganistan) lightly ... I despise mostly the ACTS of the president and the people supporting these acts. Bush as a person is quite an amusing individual - as were Clinton and Reagan. The problem is that such amusing and rather non-responsible individuals can wage war against any country they wish, without very valid reasons - except of course the interests of Americans (especially big American - or rather multinational - corporations). And I do not believe in the «America promotes democracy world-wide» argument, when it is well known that the USA has supported so many dictatorships in so many countries ... So what - do they get the facts right or not? This is what counts in a newspaper. Should I understand that any journal which does not endorse the candidates you support is to be considered as lying? Just asking !!! So, you insinuate that the NYT lies in general as well as in this particular issue. But you cannot prove it, can you? Until you do prove it however may I consider that you are out of order on this also ... Furthermore is being liberal a crime ? Is it incompatible with the 2x2's views ? Is it to be despised ? Just asking again !!!
|
|
|
Post by ha on May 7, 2004 12:03:03 GMT -5
The following proves nothing but I felt that it may be considered in the context of the discussion because of the link it establishes : ... Charles Graner, a former prison officer from Uniontown, Pennsylvania, one of the six soldiers from the regiment facing courts-martial.
Mr Graner's neighbours said they were stunned by the revelation that he was apparently involved in abuse. Painted on a stone outside of his home is a verse from the Book of Hosea. It says: "Sow for yourselves righteousness, reap the fruit of unfailing love and break up your unplowed ground; for it is time to see the Lord, until he comes and showers righteousness on you."From news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=518946See also professing.proboards16.com/index.cgi?board=temporal&action=display&thread=1083939698
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 7, 2004 12:09:24 GMT -5
Sorry dear - only Bush lied AND WENT TO WAR on the basis of this lie. Sorry dear – you simply cannot accept that it was NO LIE! Can you? Mass graves – 300,000 to nearly 1 million dead under Saddam’s reign. Saddam has been responsible for the deaths of more Muslims than any other person/group. Nope. You keep “harping” because you don’t like the outcome of our 2000 election. This makes no difference. The President of the U.S. takes an oath to protect and defend. Bush was justified in his actions, even though you don’t agree with them. You’ve got a lot of “despising” going on, it seems. More fallacious comments. The “reasons” were very valid – even though you don’t agree with them. The American media is full of liberal bias; facts easily spun or left out make a lot of difference. Have you even investigated their consistency/inconsistency? Or do you just accept any criticism of Bush/America, because it lines up with your preconceived notions? Even if I generated a list of proof, you would most likely still disregard it, just as you continue to do even after I listed proofs that Bush did NOT lie about Iraq. The proof is clear on that issue, yet you continue to falsely state that he “lied”. I don’t view “liberalism” as a crime, but nowadays it isn't that far away from Socialism and then Communism. What in the world does this have to do with “2&2"? Good grief There are many, many people who do not subscribe to liberalism, and they don’t have anything to do with “2&2 views”.
|
|
|
Post by ha on May 7, 2004 12:40:24 GMT -5
ha ha ha HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA Oh my my !!
|
|
|
Post by ha on May 7, 2004 13:21:09 GMT -5
It is a pity that so many years of propaganda against the USSR and communism (of which I was never a supporter, rather the opposite), has created such collateral damages as to have people consider “liberalism” as being not that far away from Socialism and then Communism.
|
|
|
Post by Bertine Louise on May 7, 2004 14:48:10 GMT -5
lol, funny how on this board my friend no name and me would be opponents:) I dont have the time and energy to engage in the discussion as deeply as she does, but just a few notes
I think associating liberalism with communism is as much as a stretch as suggesting 2x2s can't be liberal.
I can be pretty liberal and also despise Bush's politics and attitude. ( i think Bush as a person is quite cute in an amusing way lol) His war in Iraq was ILLEGAL according to international law, and i can't stand it that a country thinks it's above that and thinks it can do what it wants no matter what other nations think.
When the plans of invading Iraq were in the news, it was all about WMD's and it seemed like most Americans supported the war becos they feared for their country's safety. Not 100% sure about the WMD's but "what if they drop a bomb on us?" was something i often heard. America supported this war out of fear with 9/11 vividly in their minds, not so much becos they cared about the Iraqi people, even though they did. Later when the WMD's were still not found, the emphasis seemed to shift to the Iraqi people.Arguments against the war were always/often countered by pointing to the tragedy of the Iraqi people under Saddam.
I never knew what to think exactly about the war in itself, becos of the horrors the Iraqi ppl have been through, but I do think America cannot use this as a justification. Their main goal was not to deliver a country of oppression. If so, they should be consequent and hunt down other dictators too. The suffering of the Iraqis were not the *main* reason the American President decided to go there, nor the *main* reason the American people supported it, nor the *main* reason American soldiers offered themselves for Iraq. Using the Iraqi people as a pro-war argument for the US is therefor misplaced, IMO.
Americans supported this war becos they were/are a traumatised nation. And I think Bush really owes his popularity solely to 9/11.
I stop my rambeling here. I actually only wanted to say that I AM a 2x2, and disagree with much of No Name pro-Bush views, so maybe some people can drop their assumptions! ;D I've been surprised to see the many attacks on her person that were simply ludicrous, one should know that it does not help you make your case.
|
|
|
Post by just an opinion on May 7, 2004 17:34:09 GMT -5
One question: Do you think what we are now fighting is World War III? inatent The war against terrorism is World War IV. World War III was the cold war which is over for the most part.
|
|
|
Post by inatent on May 7, 2004 21:18:27 GMT -5
Sorry dear - only Bush lied AND WENT TO WAR on the basis of this lie. So I consider that you are out of order on this ! . . . . Sorry if I missed this in some discussion ha, but do you think President Bush was justified in the war to dismantle Osama Bin Laden after the second attack on the World Trade Center? inatent
|
|
|
Post by inatent on May 7, 2004 21:26:42 GMT -5
. . . . I stop my rambeling here. I actually only wanted to say that I AM a 2x2, and disagree with much of No Name pro-Bush views, so maybe some people can drop their assumptions! ;D . . . . I don't know who said this first, but I like it: Anyone who is not a liberal by the time he is 20 has no heart. Anyone who is not a conservative by the time he is 40 has no brain! ;D inatent
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 8, 2004 1:04:08 GMT -5
Yes, the truth can be rather funny, can’t it? It is a pity that so many years of propaganda against the USSR and communism (of which I was never a supporter, rather the opposite) has created such collateral damages as to have people consider “liberalism” as being not that far away from Socialism and then Communism. I think associating liberalism with communism is as much as a stretch as suggesting 2x2s can't be liberal. Unfortunately, “liberalism” in it’s purest form is not reflected in a lot of today’s more vocal “liberals” (at least here in the U.S., IMO). I know there are “liberals” who probably subscribe to pure liberalism, but the mainstream left does not seem to be in line with that. It’s not so much that “propaganda” has led to this perceived correlation between liberalism and Socialism/Communism, it is many of today’s “liberals” themselves that have led to this conclusion. The New Thought PoliceThe Death of Right and Wrongboth by Tammy Bruce (Conservative and Liberal – self-proclaimed lesbian pro-choice feminist Bruce, ex-president of the Los Angeles chapter of NOW - National Organization for Women ) “Rush Limbaugh would call [Tammy] Bruce a liberal who got mugged by reality, but she didn't become a conservative.”“If Communism was liberalism in a hurry, liberalism is Communism in slow motion. Where Communism smashed, liberalism erodes. The end result is the same: a soulless society in which liberty perishes and tradition is forgotten.”With regard to the journalistic “integrity” of the New York Times, perhaps you (“ha”) would be interested in the following (but then again, maybe you won’t): Fraud: How the New York Times Distorts the News and Why It Can No Longer Be Trustedby Bob Kohn lol, funny how on this board my friend no name and me would be opponents:) HI THERE, Bertine! Long time no “talk”! ;D Bush is a good man who is undeserving of the malevolence that has been aimed in his direction. However, it has become quite true that when a strong leader emerges, people will either love him or “hate” him. Ronald Reagan invoked many of the same emotions in people as Bush does. Saddam’s actions throughout the past 12 years was illegal according to international law as well. But what good is “international law”, if the UN is too afraid to actually make their “words” and “warnings” count? Additionally, what good is “international law”, when the UN (and countries such as Russia, France, and Germany) was rife with corrupt and illegal dealings with Iraq (Oil For Food program being just one example). When it comes to the safety of the U.S., it is (and will hopefully continue to be) generally true that this country will protect its citizens despite the lack of backbone in organizations like the UN. With regard to the UN – I view them as an ineffective organization, and our country would be stupid to bow down at their altar and put our security in their hands. “Sometimes the best way to get allies is to be willing to forge ahead alone. And sometimes it's not possible to get them. When Clinton confronted the Serbs over Kosovo in 1999, it seemed impossible to get Russian approval, so the administration waged war without a Security Council [UN] vote.”TownHall.com It’s not so much that the U.S. thinks it can do what it “wants” – it is that the U.S. will do what is necessary to protect its people. September 11 was a wake-up call for our country (just as Pearl Harbor was); we had lulled ourselves into the false comfort that we were safe, despite previous attacks on us and our interests throughout the past couple of decades. Unfortunately, we are in the position in the world where many countries turn to us for their needs, wants and protection. Yet at the same time, we are looked down upon and disparaged by many of those same countries. As I said, Anti-Americanism is very in vogue. :-\ Well, the WMD fear was real and valid (see previous posts); Saddam acted like he had something to hide, was in position to pass along bio/chemical weapons/info to terrorists, and he was just about always less than forthcoming with the U.N. Inspectors. Just the simple fact that Saddam was in constant violation of the cease-fire agreement from the first Gulf War made action against him warranted. I agree with this to a point; 9/11 did sharpen our awareness of the dangers against us. Saddam’s clear history of association, support of, and provision of safe harbor for terrorists definitely made him a threat. After 9/11 happened, it was pretty clear that the war on terror would be long, and would extend beyond Afghanistan. It is really too bad that many other countries in the world don’t wake up to this very, very real threat. Unfortunately, it may take their own version of 9/11 happening before they realize the extent of this evil threat. Of course, Spain, after getting hit in a similar manner, ended up turning tail and running. Wrong message. A sign of weakness before the terrorists only emboldens them. Osama bin Laden said this himself about us when the U.S. pulled out of Mogadishu in 1993 after we suffered casualties. Again, at times there are multiple goals to a “war”. As stated before, Lincoln didn’t engage in the Civil War to stop slavery – it was to preserve the Union. The fact that slavery was ended (while not the primary purpose of the war at all) made the war justified. I know that helping to liberate the Iraqi people was definitely an aspect of the decision to go to war. Bush made mention of this several times. After the first Gulf War, the first Bush had agreed to help the people uprise, and then he didn’t! Saddam slaughtered those people afterwards. During Clinton’s term, a similar promise was made, but Clinton also backed out, and Saddam murdered those people as well. I wish we (and the rest of the world) did have the power and resources to get rid of the evils perpetuated by dictators like Saddam Hussein and his kind. Unfortunately, we can only stretch ourselves so far, and must take each situation issue by issue. I also think that many “anti-war” protestors don’t protest because they are sincerely concerned about the welfare of innocents that get caught in the middle; I think it’s primarily because they are just opposed to the United States in general. These are just my observations based on the rabid protests that are aimed at the U.S. Strangely, there were/are no widespread protests in the streets against Saddam (and his kind) and/or terrorist groups. Hmmmm. Sometimes, it is an awful moment in history that can expose the true strength of a leader. September 11 was a defining moment in Bush’s term. Thanks for clarifying that, Bernice! ;D I know for a fact that not all “2&2" hold identical political beliefs, so those continued assumptions were getting a little irritating. BTW – drop me a line sometime! I would enjoy hearing from you again. Did you get my PM about The Passion? The war against terrorism is World War IV. World War III was the cold war which is over for the most part. Interesting. I never looked at the Cold War that way before . . . . I don't know who said this first, but I like it: Anyone who is not a liberal by the time he is 20 has no heart. Anyone who is not a conservative by the time he is 40 has no brain! ;D I’ve heard this one before! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Bertine Louise on May 8, 2004 18:40:42 GMT -5
Hi No Name:) It's a pleasure arguing with you:) I did get your pm, havent seen the passion yet but will let you know when i have. HI THERE, Bertine! Long time no “talk”! ;D Bush is a good man who is undeserving of the malevolence that has been aimed in his direction. However, it has become quite true that when a strong leader emerges, people will either love him or “hate” him. Ronald Reagan invoked many of the same emotions in people as Bush does. I do not hate Bush I think i would like him as a person but not as a president, his actions and attitude do burn me up. He might be a strong leader to the american people (he reminds me of a lost puppydog tho), but that doesn't mean he's got the right principles imo. The fact that we need an international law and an international organisation like the UN has to be seen apart from the current functioning of the UN. Saying, "Saddam did it too" does not justify breaking the international law. For the record: International Law dictates that war is only legal when: out of self defense when one is attacked when there is a clear direct danger the UN consents It is puzzling how a christian nation can support a pre emptive war. Anyways, we need international law and organisation even if its functioning and practice need improvement. Some countries might be corrupt but then you have corruption in all sorts of organisation. No one has totally clean hands, not even the US. Curruption might have damaged the UN, but the US unilateral actions has made all the good intentions of nations being united to be in vain, and I think this is very, very sad. I find it extremely frightening that one country thinks it can be above all. I also find it very frightning when a country is much lacking in self critisism and thinks being proud and arrogant is a virtue. The thing is that there wasnt any *hard* evidence that Iraq was a threat to the USA!! Do remember that the world was behind the USA when they invaded Afghanistan... It pains me to see the US spit on the UN. The UN stands for *United* Nations, the USA is included in that too. It seems though, that the US wants to go its own way. I won't say the UN is a wonderful perfect organisation bcos it works so well, i do think its a wonderful organisation cos i think the world *needs* an international organisation and they have done lots of good stuff. This was justified according to some experts i heard about it becos there was a clear and present danger. There was international support for these actions and the NATO was involved too which makes a difference. It was Russia that threw in a veto. The things is that not everybody agrees that invading Iraq was in the interest of the American people, even tho Bush very much wanted you to believe that and succeeded. Once again, the world was behind you when you invaded Afghanistan. Why would the needy have to agree with the ideas and actions of the giver? Just becos you got big bucks to spend, doesnt mean you cant be criticized. For the record, its no big deal for the US to help out in foreign aid, it's only a tiny fraction of their capacity. Other countries give relatively much more and the US is lowest on the list. check oecd.org Anti Americanism is definately growing, and altho i think there is a calimero effect ("he's big and i'm small, it's not fair!" that plays a part, i do think America needs to stop ego-tripping and do some serious soulsearching and take the critisism to heart. real and valid in your opinion He's not the only one. Who's next? But there are no proven connections between Saddam and 9/11. Saudi Arabia however... I think people are aware. Just not evrybody is so ready to reach out to bombs. Its easy to throw accusations of cowardice while patting yourself on the back for being "sooo brave" I wonder how you would feel if your kids or other dear ones that were in that train in Madrid, or being held hostage with a gun against their head with a very real threat of death.. I won't say what is or what isn't right, but i do understand. Besides that, Spain got a new president that always had been against the war. And the fact that Aznar supported it doesn't mean the Spanish people did. The side effects don't justify the Americans though. Like i said, i mostly object against the principles behind the war. I think the americans were mislead into believing that invading Iraq would make America safer. Evryone had 9/11 in their minds, but there are no links proven between saddam and 9/11. And i object against the breaking of international law. And i just can't understand why the US as a christian nation seems so keen on war and glorifies it. Even if it would be a necessary evil, its still evil and nothing to be keen on. Yes a convenient side effect that would help him make his case... I think protesting against Saddam is a moot point. There's no discussion about that! You might have some protestors that are anti american for the sake of it, but i think for many its the other way around: the USA's unjustified actions and attitude makes them anti american. The whole Iraq thing has made me pretty anti american (politics and certain arrogant attitudes!), but then, maybe thats becos I'm young and supposed to be anti:P
|
|
|
Post by inatent on May 8, 2004 23:07:25 GMT -5
. . . . The fact that we need an international law and an international organisation like the UN has to be seen apart from the current functioning of the UN. Saying, "Saddam did it too" does not justify breaking the international law. . . . . Just what authority binds us to this "international law"? When did we cease to be a soverign nation? When did the President's oath of office have an obligation to "international law" included. I thought he was required to support the Constitution of the United States, and the last time I read it there was nothing there about obedience to any other authority except (interestingly enough for these times) God. inatent
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 8, 2004 23:13:41 GMT -5
Many confident and self-assured people can cause this reaction . . . . It doesn’t mean he doesn’t, either. The “world” loved Clinton; IMO, he was definitely a leader who lacked principles. First off – let me dispel the misconception that the U.S. is acting “unilaterally”. This is not the case at all. And before one wants to label so much blame at the U.S. for the failures of the UN, consider the following: Since when has any “international law” organization been truly effective at keeping law and order? The UN would be better suited to assist in humanitarian efforts in poor countries – they are not, and have never been effective at enforcing any type of international law. The UN has repeatedly failed in its essential mission: to preserve world peace. The wars, genocide, and routine human rights abuses of many of its members (and the UN’s failure to stop them) prove this point. The UN has proven that it is incapable of fostering peace or human rights. The UN by itself it just an organization consisting of “member states”, none of which are bound to do a thing it tells them to do! Nothing should compel the U.S. to act against its national interests and lay ourself upon the mercy of other countries. Nothing forces the U.S. to belong to (and support financially) an organization that disregards and undermines U.S. interests. Nowhere in our Constitution does it require the U.S. to bind itself to any treaty or “international organization”. The UN has become a tool for anti-American and anti-democratic tyrannies. Why should we regard the UN as an organization worth bowing to or supporting without question? (Besides the fact that the rest of the world would love to see us neutered?) The UN has repeatedly failed to prevent genocidal massacres. It sat idly by during the genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda, and the former Yugoslavia. The UN has also failed to prevent wars in Africa, the Balkans, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and the Middle East. Whatever the causes for these conflicts, they prove that the UN failed to bring to peace to the world – and that without U.S. involvement, the UN is a hollow shell. This surely irritates many of the member states . . . By what justification has the U.S. government – through the UN – gotten into the business of funding socialist wealth redistribution programs? The UN subscribes to the “Robin Hood” mentality of robbing the “rich” to give to the “poor” – but just a tiny percentage of the money the U.S. taxpayer gives to the UN programs actually reaches the people its supposed to help! The idea of the “UN” was a good one – an organization in which the nations of the world could come together to meet and talk about mutual concerns. But today, the UN is at best impotent and at worst anti-American, anti-Semitic, and anti-democratic. The UN is a failed experiment. It gives a forum to some of the most tyrannical leaders in world history, allowing them to pontificate self-righteously about how to establish peace on earth. These are the thugs we somehow have a moral obligation to? I know some people don’t want to admit or acknowledge this, but who is the world’s real guardian of freedom, democracy, tolerance, and peace? The U.S. Before the UN ever existed, the U.S. and its allies beat the Nazis, Fascists, and the Japanese imperialists in WWII. Since the UN’s creation, the U.S. has prevented a Soviet invasion of Western Europe, protected South Korea from an invasion by North Korea, and gave the communists a run for their money in Vietnam before the “peace” movement eroded U.S. resolve! We won the Cold War, ending a brutal and expansionist Soviet regime that murdered millions of people. Do we get credit for all this at the UN? ‘Course not! Consider some more facts: in 2001, the U.S. was voted off the UN Human Rights Commission. The country in charge of that Commission? That would be the great human rights champion – Libya. Meanwhile, in charge of the disarmament committee is another great member of the family of nations – Syria. It might be funny if it weren’t so frightening! Unfortunately, since it’s unlikely that the UN will be eliminated altogether, the U.S. will probably continue to give lip service to the UN while simultaneously acting in its own interests. Again, what good is this so-called international law, when the UN (a representative of such “international” law) is impotent? For 12 years, Saddam thumbed his nose at the UN, while they continued to pass resolution after resolution against him and yet continued to do nothing. While at the same time they engaged in illegal activities involving the Oil For Food program. Do you not recognize this corruption was most likely the UN’s motive for not wanting to use force against Iraq? The same goes for France, Russia, and Germany – they didn’t support the U.S. because they wanted to protect their own interests – their illegal dealings with Iraq. The US didn’t go into Iraq without cause; they didn’t go into Iraq to “conquer” and "control" it, either (unlike the actions Saddam took when he invaded Kuwait in 1990). It is puzzling how the rest of the world wants to stand by and do nothing to prevent the evils of such things like terrorism, and tyrannical dictators who systematically slaughter hundreds of thousands of people. And then, that same world body will criticize another group of nations for actually doing something about it . . . Iraq was part of the war on terror Evidence of Saddam’s history – even up to the war – was definitely indicative of his being a threat to the U.S. Do you remember that among many things, he was also responsible for a planned assassination attempt on former President Bush?
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 8, 2004 23:14:33 GMT -5
Why would the "experts" "justify" the U.S.'s action without UN approval in this instance? Would it perhaps have something to do with who was President at the time?? I suspect so . . . At any rate -- No, there was not a clear and present danger – not to us, the U.S. There was never even a suggestion (or history of such) that Milosevic ever possessed or sought WMDs (contrary to Saddam’s history). There was definitely a clear and present danger to the civilians in the Balkans– but then this also holds true for the citizens of Iraq. Do the mass graves in Iraq with 300,000+ to perhaps 1,000,000 bodies not indicate a clear and present danger? So if there isn’t international support this automatically makes any action wrong? I don’t think so. Of course not – but rabid, hateful accusations are far above mere criticism. For the record, there is plenty of Anti-Americanism even in our own country; I saw a “peace” protestor calling for the murder of American soldiers in Iraq. Actually, the U.S. foreign-aid budget as a percentage of gross national product (GNP) ranks last among the world’s wealthiest countries (at about 0.1 percent). In raw dollars, however, the United States is now the world’s top donor of economic aid. -- I’m sure many others think we should be giving much, much more. Well, just based on the fact of the U.S.'s position in the world, it will always be seen as “ego-tripping”. Before you think our country can’t take “criticism to heart”, bear in mind that there is plenty of that going on in our own country. But again, “criticism” is one thing – “hate” is quite another. And there is an enormous amount of hate leveled against this country. Not opinion, Bertine – fact. Saddam had a proven history of engaging in this behavior. His continued disregard for the UN is well documented. His continued engagement in illegal bio/chemical activities is proven (substantiated even moreso after the coalition action in Iraq). See previous posts on this issue – this isn’t something I came up with because of opinion. A pertinent comment/question would be – Why didn’t the UN act?? And what is the solution, Bertine? Do nothing while terrorist groups (using the assistance -- shelter and resources -- of sympathetic countries), take time to plot more and more attacks?? Just as history as judged Western Europe harshly for its failure to recognize and stop Nazi aggression in the 1930s, so too will history judge harshly those who saw this coming danger but failed to act. Some here in the U.S. (who look for any excuse to condemn Bush), are even now trying to level blame at Bush for failing to take action to prevent 9/11! Now, if that doesn’t beat all!!
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 8, 2004 23:15:43 GMT -5
And no one ever said there were proven connections between Saddam and 9/11. But there are connections between Saddam and Al-Queda; there are connections between him and terrorists; there are connections between him and terrorism. This is a war on terror we are waging. I really wonder if people are as aware as you may think. It wasn’t all the other countries in the world that were attacked in such a manner. Problem is, many think that complacency is the way to fight this battle. It was this type of attitude and politics that on 9/11 led to three airplanes full of people being overtaken by a handful of guys wielding only box cutters, and killing 3,000 people who were just going about their daily life. Many want to bury their head in the sand. Many want to blame the US itself for the attacks of 9/11. Many don’t have the backbone to do something about this. I do understand the human tendency to flee from danger; but there are times when it needs to be confronted. This is one of those times, because terrorism is a global issue, and as we have seen, no one should consider themselves safe from the danger. But the Spanish people were pretty much set to re-elect Aznar’s party. After the 3/11 attacks, and especially since the perpetrators said it was b/c of Spain’s support of the US, the citizens of Spain decided to change party leadership of their country. Again, wrong message. These type of people (the terrorists) have no respect for anyone – what makes Spain think they are going to be any safer now? Why? Because the “word” of a terrorist group promising not to harm innocents is supposed to mean something? Does anything? You don’t think it’s a good thing that 25 million Iraqi people don’t have to fear the brutality of Saddam each day? Besides – helping the Iraqi citizens was a component (even if media outlets in other countries didn’t report it as such). Again – no one has said there are proven links between Saddam and 9/11. But Iraq is a part of the war on terror (same comments as above). See above for reiterated comments about the UN. You honestly think b/c the recognition that war is necessary at times automatically means someone is “keen” on it? I disagree with that concept. No sane person (Christian or not) is “keen” on war. Edgar and I had a very long and drawn out argument on this issue awhile back. For the record, I selfishly wish 9/11 had never happened, and that we hadn’t been pushed into this war on terror!! I am glad, though, that the people of Afghanistan and Iraq can have a chance at life without the brutal reign of their former rulers. But it is going to be hard going in those countries for awhile. It took many years for our own country to stabilize its republic/"democratic" form of government. But why the double-standard, Bertine? Why say: We all agree that Saddam was bad, but we’re not going to engage in worldwide protest about people like him or the terrorists. No – we’ll just save our energies for protesting the U.S.! ?? Does this make sense? There’s no question about that at all! What about the unjustified actions and attitude of terrorists? Again, I ask you – why are there not worldwide marches, protests, and burning effigies of Osama bin Laden, Saddam, etc.?? Sorry – it simply makes no sense that the U.S. is singled out for such outcry. If the “world” wants to protest, march en masse, and scream about something it considers wrong or evil – then at least be consistent about who or what it is protesting! So far, that consistency is non-existent. Well, the whole lack of support from many other world countries has made me even more Pro-American! Yes, Bertine – you're young, so there’s hope for you yet! he he ;D LYLAS – (really and truly)
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 8, 2004 23:17:28 GMT -5
on 05/08/04 at 7:10pm, Bertine Louise wrote:. . . . The fact that we need an international law and an international organisation like the UN has to be seen apart from the current functioning of the UN. Saying, "Saddam did it too" does not justify breaking the international law. . . . . inatent:Just what authority binds us to this "international law"? When did we cease to be a soverign nation? When did the President's oath of office have an obligation to "international law" included. I thought he was required to support the Constitution of the United States, and the last time I read it there was nothing there about obedience to any other authority except (interestingly enough for these times) God. inatent Sorry, inatent -- didn't mean to run all over your recent post with my multiple ones . . .
|
|
|
Post by Bertine Louise on May 9, 2004 9:57:33 GMT -5
hello hello, i'm in the middle of exams so i;ll keep it short! (try to anyway) will skip the issues that have been touched before and we ll never agree on lol. When you're dealing with other sovereign nations and definately if you think of attacking them, you do have an obligation to keep to International Law! Nations can't just run around doing what they want to other nations. Typical for the the USA to think they can rule the world singlehandedly... Can't say too much about Clinton's merits (just that i thought he was charming), but that's what they say about Kerry too, having no principles. Having no principles might be bad, but I think it's even worse to have the wrong principles lol! I'm not blaming them for UN failures, I'm blaming the US for shoving them aside take their own way and not respecting other nations opinions in foreign affairs. That's what I'm saying! The difference between you and me is that you want to write it off, I still believe in it, we need an organisattion like that and we need to be working to make it better. Btw, have you put as much effort in doin a google search on the merits of the UN instead of only looking for bads?? The more you brag about yourself, the less likely ppl will give you any recognition. It's no wonder there's so much anti americanism, who does like arrogance?? I was surprised you didnt comment on my accusation that Americans think that pride and arrogance is a virtue... The Spanish people were ready to re-elect the Partido Popular becos of the succes in economy and combat against against the ETA, Iraq was not an issue. The Spaniards don't see the war in Iraq as a war against terror like the Americans do, in fact 90% had been against the war and against Aznar's support, becos they felt (and many with them like me) that the war would only encourage more terrorist attacks (and it did). So it's not like they suddenly changed their minds about Iraq! What did it for Aznar was misleading the Spaniards with keeping the ETA nr1 suspect, while evrything pointed to Al Qaida. Don't think we dont want to fight terror, we just have different ideas about what's best! That's the whole difference! We just think you shouldn't boast about being top in givin raw dollars, cos you remain, in president Jimmy Carter's words: ".. the stingiest nation of all!"Hearing criticism is somethin else than takin it to heart. Thank goodness there are still voices of opposition in the US! That's how it should be, and it shouldnt be done away with: "hmpf, they all hate us!" I thought it was very disturbing that on the day when the USA finally invaded Iraq, suddenly all voices of opposition faded away, and the one that did dare to be critical was accused of being unpatriotic... How crazy is that... The thing that disturbs me is not so much the support for Bush, but it seems so many Americans can only praise Bush and can't say anything critical about him. Over here our prime minister no matter who it is is could never do anything right, we will always keep critical! I edited my post and said that real and valid was in your opnion. The main issue is whether there was a validation for going to war! Of course you think so, I have my serious doubts. There are more things than war. I dont think things have become safer since the US invaded Iraq, American soldiers still die there every week and the rest of the world hates America even more. I don't claim to have the solution for a major problem like this, but i do think a lot of good can be reached with developmental aid since the great source of terrorism is poverty. No not at all automatically you misunderstand me. I just got that impression by listening to Bush speeches and other Americans and then seeing American soldiers cheering when the bombs hit in in Baghdad. Then there is this whole concept in America of 'war heroes', we don't have anything like that. I guess we will never understand eachother. there s no question of a double standard. It's simple: what's the use of protesting when evrybody would agree with you anyway??? Btw there actually have been a few protest marches against terrorism. Ahhhh.....polarization! There's nothing wrong with being pro-american as long as you dont lose yourself in it and keep your eyes open for the bad things. Same thing for being anti, always gotta keep your eyes open for the good too and don't lose yourself in hatred. LYLAS too;) PS: whatever happened to HA?
|
|