|
 alienmindscape
member
Registered: 08/28/01
Posts: 184
Last seen: 21 years, 5 months
|
|
Also, pacifism holds war as a last result. You can be a pacifist and still find fighting necessary at some point. I'd consider myself a pacifist. Buy if you hit me in the face because I'm opposed to a bullshit war, I'll kick the living crap out of you. You leave me no choice. But if you happened to get away from me, I wouldn't search down whatever city you happened to live in, and which was harboring you, and launch missles at it. Plus, the whole analogy doesn't work anyways because, as someone else pointed out, the U.S. is not a pacifist country and we've been kicking the shit out of the Middle East for a long time. Basically a bully got kicked in the nads, and now he's attacking everyone because he can't kind the kid who actually nailed him.
"That which does not kill me makes me grow stranger"
|
gluke bastid
Stinky Bum
 
Registered: 12/20/00
Posts: 3,322
Loc: Charm City
Last seen: 6 years, 5 days
|
|
Damn straight, brutha.
"All energies flow according to the whims of the great magnet."
-Hunter S. Thompson
--------------------
Society in every form is a blessing,
but government at its best is but a necessary evil
- Thomas Paine
|
 Innvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Registered: 02/08/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
|
|
***consider lifting sanctions in Iraq that are resulting in the deaths of 5,000 children a month?). ****
This is complete and utter bullshit
****Bush wants a war, and a big one. But that's not what most of us want. We want justice and peace. ****
Speak for yourself about 90% of americans want to beat the living shit out of these cowards and the country's that harbor them...you my friend are in the minority.
****And there are other reasons for this war, such as getting a stronger hold on the natural resources (oil & gas) in the MIddle East. ****
I couldn't be that over 5000 of our own people are killed. Why don't you stop while you are ahead because it is becoming drastically aparent that you have no idea what your talking about.
****The reactionary right is getting everything they ever dreamed of politically under the rubric of fighting terrorists.****
The reactionary right? If you remember Klinton bombed imediatly after the terrorist attacks and managed to bring to justice none of the intended targets. Please educate yourself to reality...it might help
***Let's just bring the actual perpetrators to justice and not buy into the whole program of going totalitarian here. It isn't necesary.***
Spoken like a pure pacifist
Relax, Relax, Relax.....it's just a little pin prick * there'll be no more AARRGGHHH!!!! but you may feel a little sick.....
--------------------
America....FUCK YEAH!!!
Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
|
Innvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Registered: 02/08/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
|
|
***Also, pacifism holds war as a last result***
No Pacifist believe violence is never the answer. Period.
***You can be a pacifist and still find fighting necessary at some point***
Only if the Pacifist is a Hypocrite....
****I'd consider myself a pacifist. Buy if you hit me in the face because I'm opposed to a bullshit war, I'll kick the living crap out of you****
Then your not a pacifist...your a hypocrite
****Plus, the whole analogy doesn't work anyways because, as someone else pointed out, the U.S. is not a pacifist country***
If you read the original post you'd see we are not talking about a country but the people inside of it and people's mindset.
****Basically a bully got kicked in the nads, and now he's attacking everyone because he can't kind the kid who actually nailed him.****
No 5000 people are dead by cowards and we want him and his friends to pay.
Relax, Relax, Relax.....it's just a little pin prick * there'll be no more AARRGGHHH!!!! but you may feel a little sick.....
--------------------
America....FUCK YEAH!!!
Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
|
MokshaMan
enthusiast
Registered: 03/12/01
Posts: 280
|
 Re: To be Pacifist or not to Be?  [Re: gluke bastid]
#419664 - 10/09/01 01:36 PM (23 years, 11 days ago) |
|
|
The thing is with what Gandhi did was at the time, the British Empire was falling. It had become too expensive to keep the British Empire in existence. Canada was granted their "freedom" soon before that I believe and several other countries soon after that. I personally think this is because they were no longer able to exploit large numbers of people in those countries. Besides the British at the time were far more willing to listen instead of just killing Gandhi(which they had the ability to do).
As for making the terrorist lives unfree, we do no such thing for bin laden and most of the rest of the people in the higher levels of his organization. I mean bin laden has money and is getting money donated to him from all over the world, instead of helping the poor and starving he's creating troops. He could be using his funds to educate those in Afghanistan so that they could have a better life, he's doing no such thing.
--------------------
Men can only be happy when they do not assume that the object of life is happiness.
-- George Owell
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 8 months
|
|
gluke bastid writes:
"I see a problem with your schoolyard bully metaphor. Namely, we can't hit the schoolyard bully back. He's in hiding, not standing right in front of us. Bombing the taliban is like beating up the bully's parents because he lives in their house. I don't think it accomplishes anything."
No, the analogy is this: Bully beats you up, hides in parents house. Parents refuse to surrender him. The police then go in and get him.
"We are not going to force them into submission within a month or two. They opposed the Soviet Union for ten years."
It is not necessary for them to be forced into submission. All that is necessary is for the terrorists to be captured and extracted from Afghanistan for trial. If the Taliban says. "Fine. We are not powerful enough to capture him ourselves, but we will allow you to come in and search without attacking you while you carry out your search. We will not HELP you find him, but we will not hinder you either" then the problem is resolved.
"Even if we blew up every terrorist facility in the world, we are not going to "beat" terrorism."
That's what people said about Nazi Germany. That was precisely the same argument that the British appeasers spewed in WW II.
"You can't beat terrorism because it is an idea, not an institution."
It is not an idea. It is a tactic.
"Terrorism has been beating us, and by us I mean every Nation in the world, for decades.The scary truth of the matter is that terrorism works really, really well for the terrorist."
This is untrue. They haven't been "beating" us, they have been harming us. And, by the way, not every country is as inept at handling terrorism as the US is. The English are damn good at handling terrorists, as are the French, the Germans, the Italians, and the Israelis.
Of course it is unrealistic to expect that you can capture or kill every terrorist before he can carry out his attacks, just as it is unrealistic to expect that you can capture every bank robber before he pulls off his heist, or capture a Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer before he murders his first victim. But it is indisputable that a dead terrorist is a harmless terrorist. A dead serial murderer is a harmless serial murderer. A bank robber serving a life sentence without parole will not be robbing any more banks.
Will there be more serial murderers and more bank robbers in the future? Of course. Will there be more terrorists in the future? Of course. Does that mean we should ignore the ones who are causing problems NOW for fear that by punishing them we piss off their friends? Hardly.
"So Palestine decided to branch its most important land off to make it into Israel?"
The US had absolutely NOTHING to do with the creation of Israel. Palestine was a British protectorate.
"I think the situation in Afghanistan is different. What we are fighting there is an ideology that is based mainly on hatred for America. Destroying the Taleban will not destroy this hatred, it will only make it more widespread."
Why do you think that the rest of the Muslim world will support the Taliban? There is not a SINGLE Muslim nation (except Pakistan) that even recognizes the Taliban as a legitimate government. In the eyes of the Muslim world, the Taliban is an outlaw "government", a "rogue state", who have bastardized the teachings of Mohammed. Besides, it is not necessary for the Taliban to be destroyed, just for bin Laden to be captured.
"The injustice of my argument is that, by not bombing, we would be taking no effective measure to ensure attacks on us would never happen again. The injustice of your argument is that its consequences ensure attacks on us WILL happen again."
No, the consequences of my argument is that bin Laden's group (and almost certainly others associated with it) will be destroyed, and rendered harmless. This ensures that, though we may be attacked again, we will not be attacked by bin Laden. Might Hezbollah attack us again, as they have in the past? Yes. But they would have attacked us anyways. Hezbollah has killed more Americans in total, through their hundreds of separate smaller terrorist attacks, than the total dead from the Sept 11 attacks.
You think that retaliation MIGHT make more fanatics turn to terrorist tactics. I say that appeasement will GUARANTEE future attacks. Further, I say that even if this retaliatory action DOES cause further attempts (which I do not stipulate -- this is strictly for the sake of argument), it is still CORRECT and NECESSARY for criminals to be brought to justice. There is NO civilized society that permits those who initiate force to get away with it. NO civilized society that will offer a murderer driven by hatred sympathy and understanding rather than punishment. Why? Because even the most hopelessly naive society understands that there are some individuals for whom sympathy and love means less than nothing. They don't crave your "understanding", they loathe and despise you for being weak enough to offer it.
Sad but true.
pinky
--------------------
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 8 months
|
|
alienmindscape writes:
"The real thing is to go after the perpetrators of the "suicide bombins" while also reevaluating our activities in the Middle East..."
Correct.
"...consider lifting sanctions in Iraq that are resulting in the deaths of 5,000 children a month?
This is not a US sanction. This is a UN sanction. Any country is free at any time, and has been free since the sanctions were imposed, to deal with Iraq if they choose. The US will not declare war on them if they ignore the embargo.
"Bush wants a war, and a big one."
Bullshit.
"Sure, the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks must be brought to justice..."
Yes, that is what everyone says. But the very next words out of their mouths is some reason why it can't be done. Negativity. Slam whatever action the US chooses to make, but propose nothing in its place.
"...but we are being tricked into backing an war that is not needed..."
Please give us a workable alternative to capturing a fugitive that enjoys the full protection, militarily and economically, of a "rogue nation", one whose "leaders" aren't considered legitimate even by the other Muslim states in the world, who are considered an embarassment to Islam.
"...and we are being tricked into giving up our civil liberties."
Which civil liberties? The right to take more than one carryon bag on an American Airlines flight?
"The reactionary right is getting everything they ever dreamed of politically under the rubric of fighting terrorists."
Nonsense. This such a sweeping, bald-faced generality that I call you on it. Exactly WHAT has the "reactionary right" gained?
pinky
--------------------
|
MrKurtz
enthusiast
Registered: 08/04/01
Posts: 303
Last seen: 22 years, 6 months
|
Re: pacifism [Re: Phred]
#420133 - 10/09/01 08:37 PM (23 years, 10 days ago) |
|
|
Has anyone thought about the fact that the Taliban is in power because of the US? And, there are many examples of the US killing innocent people for no good reason really. Can you explain the US bombings of Cambodia during the Vietnam war? They bombed major cities for no reason really, and let Pol Pot come into power, who killed a quarter of Cambodia's population(about 2 million people). The CIA bombed many Latin America countries with unmarked jets to destroy democratic goverments who were attempting to be independent.
As for terrorist groups and the Taliban, this is a group that is not supported by the people, but guess whos paying for it? the people. I'm sure alot more then 5,000 Afghan citizens, who have nothing to do with the Taliban other then being unfairly ruled by them, will be killed.
There are more ways to kick the Taliban out and have Bin Laden brought to justice then to invade and kill alot of people while losing a good number of soldiers. Have any of you heard about the cases of anthrax in Florida? Sounds like something is going on....
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 8 months
|
Re: pacifism [Re: MrKurtz]
#420206 - 10/09/01 09:36 PM (23 years, 10 days ago) |
|
|
MrKurtz writes:
"Has anyone thought about the fact that the Taliban is in power because of the US?"
Yes. What's your point? That the US was supposed to know, in advance, that by helping Afghans eject the Soviet occupation forces, they were setting the stage for a band of religious nutbars to take over the country a decade later? The US was supposed to know somehow that these nutbars would not only enslave their own people, but harbor and protect a lunatic who would engineer terrorist attacks of enormous magnitude against the same people who helped him when he was a mujahadeen leader? A question for you: was it correct for the US to help the mujahadeen or not? If not, why not?
"And, there are many examples of the US killing innocent people for no good reason really. Can you explain the US bombings of Cambodia during the Vietnam war?"
No. I can't. Is it your contention that since the US bombed Cambodia thirty years ago, any bombing of any target in any country regardless of the situation, from now until the end of time is automatically wrong?
Germany bombed civilian targets sixty years ago. So did Japan. Does this mean that neither Germany nor Japan may defend their citizens against attack? The Romans invaded Africa two millenia ago, slaughtering entire populations. Does this mean that Italy may not defend itself?
Again, what is your point?
"There are more ways to kick the Taliban out and have Bin Laden brought to justice then to invade and kill alot of people while losing a good number of soldiers."
Name one.
pinky
--------------------
|
alienmindscape
member
Registered: 08/28/01
Posts: 184
Last seen: 21 years, 5 months
|
|
"Speak for yourself about 90% of americans want to beat the living shit out of these cowards and the country's that harbor them...you my friend are in the minority"
Cowards? Youd learn to fly a jet, take it over with cheapo knives, kiling people in the bargain, and fly to your own death. That isn't cowardly, and these people aren't cowards.
Bush is a coward. Just look at him. He looks like a beaked bowl of oatmeal with 2 raisins in it. Tonight I saw him on the BBC gloating over his air attacks, and then he said something like, "as to whether we are going to have ground strikes or not, well, I'm not going to tell you." That was a priceless fuck you to the public, most of whome are stupid enough to follow the imbecile puppet president sone of an asshole crappy former president whos wife, incidentally, looks like Jabba the Hut with a wig on.
George Bush is a puss, and not one that I'd stick my cock in either. He's a nasty skanky dribbling puss with ears that thinks curtailing pollution to slow down global warming and not wreck the planet is bad for business. Fucking talking oatmeal cookie puss.
I bet Osama could kick the living shit out of Bush with one hand tied behind his back. A pussy named Bush. Bush is biting off more than he can chew, and pretty soon the whole of the MIddle East will be on his ass. Everytime he opens his mouth there's the smell of a fart.
What a fucking pile of dog crap. O shit. O George W. Bush.
"For every great president there is a great war," George H. W. Bush.
"That which does not kill me makes me grow stranger"
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 8 months
|
|
Alienmindscape writes:
"Bush is a coward. Just look at him. He looks like a beaked bowl of oatmeal with 2 raisins in it."
Well, I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm sure convinced. I certainly can't argue with reasoning like that. Alienmindscape has just proven that the US has no choice but to roll over and raise its butt in the air and take whatever terrorists care to dish out, because the mother of the American president bears a resemblance to a fictional movie character.
Might as well lock this thread right now... no point in continuing. We are all doomed.
pinky
Edited by pinksharkmark on 10/10/01 12:23 AM.
--------------------
|
gluke bastid
Stinky Bum
Registered: 12/20/00
Posts: 3,322
Loc: Charm City
Last seen: 6 years, 5 days
|
Re: pacifism [Re: Phred]
#420321 - 10/09/01 11:31 PM (23 years, 10 days ago) |
|
|
I really think Bush did a shitty job when he delivered that speech telling the Taliban to surrender Bin Laden "or else." Y'know, the one he followed up the next day by saying. "We want him dead or alive, like in those wanted posters from the Old West" (mind of a child)
Doesn't anyone else think that that put the Taleban into a position that they couldn't back down from? The day before the speech the Pakistan ambassadors were saying that the Taleban was considering asking Bin Laden to leave the country, but they were definetely singing a different tune the next day.
Granted, maybe this is a mute point, because the taleban most likely wouldn't have released him. I'm sure Bush had to convince the American people that he was being real tough on dem 'ol terrorist bastards that attacked god's country, so he couldn't have backed down from such a speach also.
The speech certainly didn't make me feel any better though. It only reaffirmed that our country is in the hands of a dixie boy who thinks America wants a cowboy as a leader.
I really don't like Bush. I support our country but I refuse to forget how much of a moron that man is.
"All energies flow according to the whims of the great magnet."
-Hunter S. Thompson
--------------------
Society in every form is a blessing,
but government at its best is but a necessary evil
- Thomas Paine
|
MokshaMan
enthusiast
Registered: 03/12/01
Posts: 280
|
|
If you're British, bitch about your own leader who BTW if you hadn't noticed is supporting the US 100%. As for him not telling us what's going to take place, read "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu, the element of suprise has always been preached in military matters. If the US never tells the citizens what took place, that's a different story; however, that does not mean that they have to tell you what's going to happen before it happens. I mean if you have something to share with the rest of us that has a point, please do so; if all you're going to do is spout off crap, please hold your tongue.
--------------------
Men can only be happy when they do not assume that the object of life is happiness.
-- George Owell
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 8 months
|
|
gluke bastid writes:
"The day before the speech the Pakistan ambassadors were saying that the Taleban was considering asking Bin Laden to leave the country, but they were definetely singing a different tune the next day."
They've been singing a different tune EVERY day. Here are some examples:
"We don't know where he is"
"We have cut off his communication and internet capabilities" ummm... how did you do that if you don't know where he is?
"We will bring him to trial in an Islamic court" ummm.... see above
Besides, it's a moot point. The Taliban does not have the power to capture him even if they wanted to. That is not speculation, that is FACT, as attested by many reports from Afghanis and independent observers. As one ex-Taliban member said, "It is not Omar who protects bin Laden. It is bin Laden who protects Omar."
"I'm sure Bush had to convince the American people that he was being real tough on dem 'ol terrorist bastards that attacked god's country, so he couldn't have backed down from such a speach also."
So you problem is with his choice of metaphor? You would have felt more at ease if he had instead invoked ...oh... the image of an FBI "wanted" poster in a post office?
If Germany had been attacked, Germany's Head Dude would have been every bit as forceful. Or France, or England. It goes with the territory: a job requirement. It is not restricted to Bush. And if you think Bush's rhetoric was a tad over the top, what was your reaction to bin Laden's videotaped rant?
In a previous post you told me that you "Want you to know that I value this discussion and am respectfully considering all your points." If that is true, that you really DO value this discussion, then why not forget about trivial quibbles over the phrasing of a presidential speechwriter, or the fact that you personally dislike the president and address the fundamental issues involved in this debate, specifically: the validity of adopting a pacifist position in a situation where an act of war has been committed by foreign nationals.
Not trying to diss you, but it seems like each succeeding post of yours is stretching further and further to find something to complain about. What next? Criticizing Bush's haircut?
Let's deal with matters of substance, okay?
pinky
--------------------
|
alienmindscape
member
Registered: 08/28/01
Posts: 184
Last seen: 21 years, 5 months
|
Re: pacifism [Re: MokshaMan]
#420529 - 10/10/01 07:39 AM (23 years, 10 days ago) |
|
|
"As for him not telling us what's
going to take place, read "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu, the element of suprise has always been preached in military matters. If the US never
tells the citizens what took place, that's a different story; however, that does not mean that they have to tell you what's going to happen
before it happens."
I think the Taliban is already prepared for ground strikes, and for Bush to not acknowledge whether we are going to or not, and to be a smug prick about it in the bargain, is just flaunting his capacity to wage a secret war and do whatever the fuck he wants, as he has done ever since he took seat in the White House, and despite his losing the popular vote. We have a right to know what our real objectives are in the Middle East, and I think is WWIII.
Eh, you fucking conservative Bushites spout crap all day, so it's OK for someone who's more liberal to spout it too. I think Bush looks like a fucking bowl of outmeal with a beak. He has no lips and his upper lip covers his lower one kind of like a Simpson's character. He say's "War on Terra" instead of "War on Terror," "Nucular" instead of "Nuclear," and he said that the terroritsts "misunderestimated the commander in chief." I was reading about liberal professors getting death threats because they were teaching the other side of the picture at their colleges. Hey, fuck you. I'm for tought liberals, or tough when we're confronted with violent sptupidity. I will personally jump up and down and celebrate if Bush is assassinated. I will thank God AND Allah. Bush is the most dangerous man alive, because he wields the most power, and he's a fucking retarded idiot who is nothing more than a drooling baby playing with fireworks.
See, we really want to get the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks, and we don't really want a huge was that is projected to last over a decade. People just wanna' get the "terrorists" and go on with out lives of rampant expansionist consumer culture and unbridled capitalism. Nobody wants a prolonged war on the Middle East, or Bush deciding to be a cowboy and go after his father's enemie, Hussein. So now we can have a huge war, that could potential escalate until nuclear weapons are deployed. If we don't so happen to get our asses kicked in the bargain, we will destroy the Middle East, and it will be a phyric victory.
Yes the Taliban were willing, if they could get him, to give up Osama to a trial in a neutral country. No they were not willing to after Bush's speach in which he demaned they turn over Osama, all leader of terrorism, all terrorists, and give the U.S. access to all terrorist training camps. Duh, these were deliberately impossible demands. We probably had the chance to negotiate, get the bad guys, have world sympathy, AND go a long ways towards disarming attacks that fall withing the rubric of "terrorism." But we want WAR, damn it. We got pilots and bombers and weapons to play with. We are REEEAAAAAADDDDDDY TOOOOO RUUUUUMBLEEEE.
The lesson that will be leaned, again, is that "might equals right," only it doesn't. And then, after our phyric (sp?) victory, in which thousands or millions are killed and nations are virtually destroyed, we will have to keep a more repressive sort of environment at home to minimize reflection and guilt, and to silence the outspoken dissent that will naturally flow from the more educated and informed and openminded.
They are already talking about an identification system for every person. What would that be, a fucking chip? We are giving permission to tap our phones and read our email.
Gimmie a fucking break! Is that what people really want?
And for the dillweed that was talking about sticking our asses in the air so the terrorists can fuck us, that's not what happened or what would happened. What happened is we went around bullying people, and we got kicked in the nuts. Now we want to kicks ass again and reassset our head bully status, only someone managed to kick us in the nads, so, if we take on more than we can chew, we're going to get hurt in this fight.
Now lets all reflect on the sage wisdom of Bush senior:
"For every great president there is a great war."
I don't think so. More like "For every failed president there is a great tragedy."
And, lastly, let's quote me:
"A stupid president for a stupid people."
Let's all admit our president is stupid, and that we've now given the office of the president more power than it has ever had before to wage war without our consent.
If the U.S. gets hit again, there will be bubbles and chunks in the facade of our idiot oatmeal presidents face, because Americans are kind of pussies, and we don't want to fight if we're going to get hurt, too. But you can't fuck all of the Muslims (20% of the world population) and not expect to get hurt.
When the world is free of Muslims, Bush can reinstate Christian prayer in classrooms and make damn well sure we pledge our allegiance to the flage every fucking morning.
We are inching towards totalitarianism, with Bush as our own personal fascist. I can just see him gloating years from now, "The people of Amurica agreed to give up certain civil liberties in order to preserve freedom." We don't even have the freedom to smoke pot or protest without getting shot with rubber bullets or pepper sprayed.
Bush also looks like a nice round steaming pile of dog shit if one were to look at it on the sidewalk from above. And where the fuck is Dick Cheney?
"That which does not kill me makes me grow stranger"
|
gluke bastid
Stinky Bum
Registered: 12/20/00
Posts: 3,322
Loc: Charm City
Last seen: 6 years, 5 days
|
Re: pacifism [Re: Phred]
#420883 - 10/10/01 02:26 PM (23 years, 10 days ago) |
|
|
Pinky, I think you completely missed the tone of my last post. I thought it quite obvious that I was simply bitching about Bush and not really asserting any constructive criticism about any issue. If it makes you uncomfortable that I did so, that is not really my problem. It is my right to say whatever the hell I want to about Bush. If I am the one who is merely looking for something to complain about, why would you bother to respond to my last post which obviously was simply an opinion about Bush as a character completely unbacked by any substance? And wouldn't "dealing with matters of substance" obligate you to ignore my last post, instead of you complaining about it? I don't really understand what motivated you to reply and argue.
The fact that you ponited out my moot point is itself a moot point because I pointed out that it was a moot point in the post itself. Did you read the whole thing?
"If Germany had been attacked, Germany's Head Dude would have been every bit as forceful. Or France, or England. It goes with the territory: a job requirement. It is not restricted to Bush. "
This is exactly what I meant when I said "I'm sure Bush had to convince the American people that he was being real tough on dem 'ol terrorist bastards that attacked god's country, so he couldn't have backed down from such a speach also." Granted I am being cynical about what I see as America's reactionary attitude but I am making the same point as you. Bush could not have backed down. No leader of any government could.
So, you're not trying to diss me, but you're going to tell me that I am stretching myself just to have something to complain about? I haven't made any assumptions about you except for one: That you honestly believe your end of the argument. If you think that I consider military action against Afghanistan to be wrong simply because I like to complain,argue with people, or simply get on your nerves, don't bother talking to me anymore.
"All energies flow according to the whims of the great magnet."
-Hunter S. Thompson
--------------------
Society in every form is a blessing,
but government at its best is but a necessary evil
- Thomas Paine
|
ToTheSummit
peregrinus
Registered: 08/22/99
Posts: 9,128
Loc: Las Vegas
Last seen: 16 days, 23 hours
|
|
Alienmindscape, your blind hatred for a person you don't know completely negates any opinion you could possibly have. I didn't vote for Bush and I think he is a terrible public speaker but if you think you could do any better in his shoes then I'd like to see you try. To make such a moronic statement as this, "I will personally jump up and down and celebrate if Bush is assassinated. I will thank God AND Allah." just proves you are stupid fucking idiot. Pinky is right, when morons like you start spouting garbage like this it is time to lock the thread because any rational discussion is finished!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two wrongs don't make a right...but three lefts do!
--------------------
You invented the wheel....You push the motherfucker!!
|
MokshaMan
enthusiast
Registered: 03/12/01
Posts: 280
|
|
The Taliban may be ready, but if he says "Oh tomorrow, we're going in with special forces around Kabul." What does this accomplish other than to warn them exactly what to expect? I mean are you seriously so ill informed about the way that war works that you'd think he'd give any piece of information away before it happens? Right now, his "real objectives" are in Afghanistan, if this changes my and other people's opinion might and likely will change.
BTW in case you didn't know, the point of the US election is not to get the popular vote. The point has never been to get the popular vote. If instead of every state giving all their votes to one person, they would have split it by districts, Bush still would've won(ie more of areas and states in the US wanted him). And had it gone to Senate because it was "too close" to call, which maybe it should have, there might have been a different outcome. I voted for Bush and I'm glad I did now, at first I kind of thought that I should have voted Nadar because of how Bush's presidency was going. He's handled the crisis with China fine and thus far handled this crisis fine. To be perfectly honest, Bush and Gore both were crappy choices. And given the choice, I'm glad we've got Bush. And for some odd reason you're convinced that this is a "racist" war, which I've for some odd reason be hearing peace protesters yell, why did Bush go to a Mosque? Why is Bush making every attempt to condemn attacks on this group(ie Muslims)? Anytime someone attacks a person of another race, is that racist? No, and such vague generalizations are absolutely stupid.
I don't have any problem with you mentioning anything of substance, but you seem incapable of doing so. As far as the start of WWIII, I'd be far more worried if Bush did get assaniated. Take a look at Cheney's old job in charge of the Pentagon for instance, his voting record, etc. The man is a much more of a hawk than Bush and likely would not have delayed the beginning of strikes. Just shows once again, how ill informed you are.
Might I suggest you pick up a newspaper outside whatever country you're in, or perhaps one with less bias. The Taliban we're not going to hand over bin Laden, you're a fool if you believe they were. The guy who's in charge of the Taliban was put into power by bin Laden and without bin Laden, he'll have no power. Why would he want to relinquish control of his country? Since bin Laden is the one that in the end put the Taliban(with help from Pakistan, and possibly the US) in power, how are they going to capture someone more powerful than they are? Bin Laden wasn't going to be handed over to any country, this was attempted before with the attack on the two US embassies. He has been indicted and the US was attempting to us more civil means to get bin Laden. Admittedly the US should have accepted the offer by Sudan to apprehend him before he fled to Afghanistan. They didn't, they fucked up, they're trying to make up for it now.
If all you're going to do is spout the same shit again, please don't waste your or my time.
Edited by MokshaMan on 10/11/01 12:24 AM.
--------------------
Men can only be happy when they do not assume that the object of life is happiness.
-- George Owell
|
MrKurtz
enthusiast
Registered: 08/04/01
Posts: 303
Last seen: 22 years, 6 months
|
|
"I didn't vote for Bush and I think he is a terrible public speaker but if you think you could do any better in his shoes then I'd like to see you try. "
Yeah, i bet most people would do just about as well. Thats why idiots don't run for president.
|
MrKurtz
enthusiast
Registered: 08/04/01
Posts: 303
Last seen: 22 years, 6 months
|
Re: pacifism [Re: Phred]
#421221 - 10/10/01 07:09 PM (23 years, 9 days ago) |
|
|
"That the US was supposed to know, in advance, that by helping Afghans eject the Soviet occupation forces, they were setting the stage for a band of religious nutbars to take over the country a decade later?"
That often happens when you allow a dictatorship to come to power.
"No. I can't. Is it your contention that since the US bombed Cambodia thirty years ago, any bombing of any target in any country regardless of the situation, from now until the end of time is automatically wrong? "
Um, i was defending the post by.. forgot who... but it was an article on americas various war crimes. But, i think it is wrong to bomb random targets in Afghan just in case some terrorists may be living there.
"'There are more ways to kick the Taliban out and have Bin Laden brought to justice then to invade and kill alot of people while losing a good number of soldiers.'
Name one. "
Eh, im not a politician, thats not my job. But, maybe any form of diplomacy other then a redneck asshole(Bush) yelling about how we are gonna go kick some towelhead ass. Maybe if they tried talking with the Taliban, who knows, maybe they would have given up Bin Laden. But they didn't even give them a chance, Bush said we are coming whether they like it or not. And every other country is scared shitless to object.
"Germany bombed civilian targets sixty years ago. So did Japan. Does this mean that neither Germany nor Japan may defend their citizens against attack? The Romans invaded Africa two millenia ago, slaughtering entire populations. Does this mean that Italy may not defend itself?
Again, what is your point? "
well, lets see, maybe my point is it happened before, so we shouldn't do it again? Or do you honestly think that all these bombs blowing up in major cities in Afghanistan only kill terrorists?
I'm not against trying to get our hands on who did this. But, when all they talk about is a "War on Terrorism", and finding those responsible, and then they go and bomb major cities, I think I have a good reason to object.
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 3 4 all )
Madtowntripper
RandalFlagg
Coaster
lonestar2004
Racist Polarbear
vintage_gonzo