Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Photo

Relevant Twain


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#1 KoWT

KoWT

    Guest

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8238 posts

Posted 03 February 2003 - 11:51 PM

"There has never been a just one, never an honorable one--on the part of
the instigator of the war. I can see a million years ahead, and this
rule will never change in so many as half a dozen instances. The loud
little handful--as usual--will shout for the war. The pulpit will--
warily and cautiously--object--at first; the great, big, dull bulk of the
nation will rub its sleepy eyes and try to make out why there should be a
war, and will say, earnestly and indignantly, "It is unjust and
dishonorable, and there is no necessity for it." Then the handful will
shout louder. A few fair men on the other side will argue and reason
against the war with speech and pen, and at first will have a hearing and
be applauded; but it will not last long; those others will outshout them,
and presently the anti-war audiences will thin out and lose popularity.
Before long you will see this curious thing: the speakers stoned from the
platform, and free speech strangled by hordes of furious men who in their
secret hearts are still at one with those stoned speakers--as earlier--
but do not dare to say so. And now the whole nation--pulpit and all--
will take up the war-cry, and shout itself hoarse, and mob any honest man
who ventures to open his mouth; and presently such mouths will cease to
open. Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon
the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those
conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse
to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince
himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he
enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception."

http://www.screen-ca...ary/1351-1.html
  • 0

#2 uglybastard

uglybastard

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 605 posts

Posted 04 February 2003 - 12:43 AM

on the part of the instigator of the war

Who do you feel is instigating the war?
  • 0

#3 KoWT

KoWT

    Guest

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8238 posts

Posted 09 February 2003 - 01:22 AM

"O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle--be Thou near them! With them--in spirit--we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it--for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts.

Amen.

(*After a pause.*) "Ye have prayed it; if ye still desire it, speak! The messenger of the Most High waits!"

It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said.


UB, what war?
I don't see a war yet, and have a modest sum of money riding on their, for whatever reason, never being a war with Iraq.

Hypothetically speaking, I'd say that the nation who's army that invades another nation is the aggressor.
They could, after all, just stay home and send spies and spooks, no?
  • 0

#4 Guest_Mirror_*

Guest_Mirror_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 February 2003 - 01:41 AM

I thought those were two exceptionally well executed posts. Thank you for sharing them.
  • 0

#5 uglybastard

uglybastard

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 605 posts

Posted 09 February 2003 - 03:22 AM

kowt said, 'I'd say that the nation who's army that invades another nation is the aggressor.'

What if the nation they invaded was a threat to them? What if said nation acted irrational and had invaded other countries in the past with little reason.
  • 0

#6 Oceania

Oceania

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 3615 posts

Posted 09 February 2003 - 03:24 AM

I'll start one ...
  • 0

#7 KoWT

KoWT

    Guest

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8238 posts

Posted 09 February 2003 - 03:54 AM

An invasion is an invasion, no matter how much you strive to dress it up as "preemptive" or "justified".

Are you intimating that Iraq is a threat to you and I?
Nonsense, my good fellow!
Saddam's Iraq is a broken dick, impoverished, and economically isolated husk of a nation.
Like I've said elsewhere here: The only people on the planet that fear Saddam outside of Iraq are the Americans. Not a bad accomplishment for the spin meisters, eh?
Convincing a large chunk of the American public that Saddam's Iraq poses a grave threat to world peace, all the while mobilizing for a crushing invasion that Iraq has little chance of resisting, all the while trampling the tennents of democracy while industriously trying to cow our allies and the UN into line.

Saddam hasn't boasted about the prowess of his weapons for a long time.
N. Korea has missile parades.
But Iraq's the danger to the folks at home and crazy-assed N. Korea can be negotiated with.

Iraq is not a threat.
Invading Iraq will not make us safer.
Invasion is unjust, as long as Iraq stays inside it's borders and doesn't attack others, let them alone and stop the cavalier and elitist doublespeak about killing bunches of Iraqis in order to free them from Saddam.

I am disgusted that Bush and co. have squandered all the poltical momentum from the 9/11 attacks on invading one junked nation and threatening (for-phucking-ever) to invade another junked nation, all the while clamping down on the citizenry.

The "war on terrorism", it turns out, is just another tawdry power grab by frightened oligarchs.
  • 0

#8 Oracle

Oracle

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 945 posts

Posted 09 February 2003 - 03:55 AM

What if George Bush is willing to start a war with a beaten and effectively defenceless country so the Jews that control Americas media and are loyal only to Israel will grant him a second term for "making the Middle East safe for the Jews"?

Hmmm.
  • 0

#9 puzzledude

puzzledude

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 43 posts

Posted 09 February 2003 - 10:32 AM

I would teach patriotism in the schools, and teach it this way: I would throw out the old maxim, "My country, right or wrong," etc., and instead I would say, "My country when she is right." --Training That Pays, Mark Twain.
  • 0

#10 puzzledude

puzzledude

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 43 posts

Posted 09 February 2003 - 11:04 AM

Quote:
"I'd say that the nation who's army that invades another nation is the aggressor. "

This is the truth! how can anyone argue against it?

Perhaps people can be swayed to believe its justified once or twice & maybe it is, but whats this? number 26 or 27 or more?
while no one has ever tried to invade u.
the vast majority of the worlds population see through the lies & know the real agenda.
but plz dont hate Americans.
Americans can be forgiven for believing these attacks are just.
If Europeans were exposed to the same media, most would be swayed too.
If i gave someone heroin & they fell asleep, could u be angry at them?
If i gave someone ice & they sped off , could u realy hate them?
If i engineer someones opinion through clever manipulation can u blame them?
  • 0

#11 baltoga

baltoga

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3626 posts

Posted 09 February 2003 - 12:19 PM

Taking a partial quote from KoWT
----------
Iraq is not a threat.
Invading Iraq will not make us safer.
Invasion is unjust, as long as Iraq stays inside it's borders and doesn't attack others, let them alone and stop the cavalier and elitist doublespeak about killing bunches of Iraqis in order to free them from Saddam.
-----------
The post-Gulf War state of Iraq complete with UN sanctions and no fly
zones is the old paradigm you espouse. The old paradigm seeks to
contain a hostile enemy inside it's border and makes sure it doesn't
attack others.

The new paradigm, with the events of 9-11, Bali and the Moscow
Theater make the old paradigm of containment obsolete. Regional
terrorism can easily be exported internationally with devastating
consequences.

So why did the US label Iraq, Iran and North Korea as the axis of
evil? Could it be for their sponsorship of terrorism? Yes. Could it
be for their continued interest in developing weapons of mass
destruction? Yes.

So why pick on Iraq first? Simple existing UN resolutions exist make
them stick. The UN has never seen so much importance as the events
of today. Unfortunately the UN is a body that needs constant prodding
into action. How many resolutions must the UN pass until it says enough?
12?, 13?, 14?

Iraq sadly is ruled by a dictator and a tyrant. When you side with him,
appease him, and accommodate him all you do is encourage him to
continue his ways.
  • 0

#12 KoWT

KoWT

    Guest

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8238 posts

Posted 09 February 2003 - 06:30 PM

http://64.58.47.63/M...es/anteater.wav
  • 0

#13 Gandu

Gandu

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 113 posts

Posted 09 February 2003 - 07:02 PM

Originally posted by uglybastard
What if the nation they invaded was a threat to them? What if said nation acted irrational and had invaded other countries in the past with little reason.



You mean like the USA?

NUKE EM! NUKE EM QUICK!
  • 0

#14 Guest_piehunt_*

Guest_piehunt_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 February 2003 - 07:13 PM

KoWT An invasion is an invasion, no matter how much you strive to dress it up as "preemptive" or "justified". etc etc


KoWT,
Good thread and great replies. I wish you had been in the audience this week when Mr Blair was doing ing his Q & A's.
I believe he would have been lost for words if you had told him what you have just told us.

Very well said Mr KoWT!

:(
  • 0

#15 zxb

zxb

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4574 posts

Posted 09 February 2003 - 07:18 PM

"So why did the US label Iraq, Iran and North Korea as the axis of
evil? Could it be for their sponsorship of terrorism? Yes"

As there is no evidence that Iraq sponsers terrorists, it (AoE) can't apply to Iraq. Not on that basis.
  • 0

#16 baltoga

baltoga

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3626 posts

Posted 09 February 2003 - 07:34 PM

Ever heard of Abu Nidal? Hmm, how did he die? Where did he die?.
  • 0

#17 zxb

zxb

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4574 posts

Posted 09 February 2003 - 07:39 PM

1 Palestinian guerilla who entered Iraq illegally and was (probably) murdered there. That is not evidence that Iraq supports terrorists.
  • 0

#18 baltoga

baltoga

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3626 posts

Posted 09 February 2003 - 07:44 PM

Yep, just kind of wandered into Iraq.

Quote:
----------
The Abu Nidal Organization (ANO), once one of the most feared transnational terrorist organizations, is now at a crossroads. The mid-August, 2002, death of the leader Sabri al Banna (aka Abu Nidal or "father of the struggle") has left many open questions, such as who is to succeed him, where to relocate to, and — most importantly, how will the organization survive. With extensive networks but few links with other terrorist organizations, its activities have been characterized by years of treachery, opportunism, and inconsistency in selecting targets.

At least until Nidal's death, the ANO's ideological objective was to liberate Palestine via a pan-Arab revolution aimed at destroying Israel. The organization comprises about 400 members plus dozens of Palestinian militia men, and is organized by functional committees for various political, military and financial activities. Considerable support in the form of safe havens, training and logistic assistance has been supplied by Iraq, Libya and Syria.
...
On Aug. 14, 2002, Nidal's house in Baghdad was raided by Iraqi forces, and on Sept. 16, he was announced dead at the age of 65. Iraq claims that he shot himself. The fact that he died from four gunshot wounds to the head has led to some speculation that the Iraqis were responsible, the threat of regime change from Washington possibly convincing Hussein to eradicate domestic instabilities to protect his position and deter other prospective internal enemies.
...
Source: http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/ano.cfm
  • 0

#19 zxb

zxb

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4574 posts

Posted 09 February 2003 - 07:47 PM

As Iraqi agents killed him (probably) it is not evidence that they support terrorists. It could even be construed as the Iraqis are actually cracking down on terrorists in their country (do you crack down on those you support? No you don't). Can't you do any better that?
  • 0

#20 KoWT

KoWT

    Guest

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8238 posts

Posted 09 February 2003 - 07:52 PM

"Just kinda wandered into Iraq?"

As opposed to "just kinda wandered into the US, took flying lessons, banged strippers, snorted cocain, stole planes, hit buildings"?

The mere presence inside of your borders of some sick monkey or another doesn't, in and of itself, indicate government level support.

Only the most dedicated fascist regimes can effectively (and at great cost/waste) control everyone that comes and goes from their nation.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2016 Pravda.Ru