Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Photo

If your children are asleep, awake them


  • Please log in to reply
55 replies to this topic

#21 Kraig

Kraig

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 52 posts

Posted 20 March 2003 - 03:30 AM

LifeisGood,

Do you want to talk about the kurds?

What about Turks jets bombing kurds with US authorization. It did happen.

US pilots in the non-fly zone were called back and became very angry with their orders. Go explain that to that fine young man sit in a F-16 ****pit.
  • 0

#22 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests

Posted 20 March 2003 - 03:31 AM

LifeisGood,

Why is it dangerous?
  • 0

#23 LifeisGood

LifeisGood

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1934 posts

Posted 20 March 2003 - 03:31 AM

Why do you pay taxes to such a government.
  • 0

#24 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests

Posted 20 March 2003 - 03:32 AM

I love my country. I just hate what it is turning into :(
  • 0

#25 LifeisGood

LifeisGood

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1934 posts

Posted 20 March 2003 - 03:36 AM

Because people of your thought have kept the U.S. from doing it's job 12 years ago. Half a million Iraqi children dead. Your way of thinking is an ideology that doesn't exist in reality
  • 0

#26 LifeisGood

LifeisGood

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1934 posts

Posted 20 March 2003 - 03:37 AM

America was born out of a Revolution, Ironically which the French supported.
  • 0

#27 obmar

obmar

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 21253 posts

Posted 20 March 2003 - 03:42 AM

Smart bombs controlled by stupid men, what a pity.

The bombs now are very smart, and only about 10% go astray. The targets are the leadership and the hard-core military who have reason to fear war crime charges, and the loss of their hostages will be regrettable.

:mad:
  • 0

#28 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests

Posted 20 March 2003 - 03:43 AM

LifeisGood,

Wrong! You should know from my posts that I have never said "do nothing". Doing something does not have to be war. Why do we have such thick headed people in charge that are not clever enough to find alternative solutions? War is not always the answer...this whole thing is happening because our leaders have been idiots for the last 12 years. We thought that the sanctions would turn the people against Saddam and they would overthrow him. That was our "solution" - idiots! (sorry, I'm really mad here). It was stupid in the first place and a big freaking failure. Many lives lost in the process and it just remained a stalemate until now.
  • 0

#29 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests

Posted 20 March 2003 - 03:45 AM

Diogenes,

First of all, the civil war was not started over slavery. Secondly, I do support some wars. This one is wrong, it was un-provoked and not neccesary.
  • 0

#30 obmar

obmar

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 21253 posts

Posted 20 March 2003 - 03:47 AM

and the jews were there as well, during the civil war.
  • 0

#31 LifeisGood

LifeisGood

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1934 posts

Posted 20 March 2003 - 03:48 AM

Plsek your words do no good for the likes of Saddam Hussein. The closes I ever came to a war was the Rodney King riots in which this white boy made barly made it out alive.
  • 0

#32 LifeisGood

LifeisGood

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1934 posts

Posted 20 March 2003 - 03:49 AM

Azov- Capitalism freed the slaves, thank you.
  • 0

#33 Missouri Mule

Missouri Mule

    Boogiein' along. . .

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 511 posts

Posted 20 March 2003 - 03:49 AM

Plsek: I'm contstantly amazed at your convoluted reasoning. By this logic it was a tragedy when we storned the beaches of Normandy because innocent people would be killed and certainly there were.

How many Iraqis have to be fed into those shredders, have their tongues cut out, dipped in vats of acid or whatever other torture Saddam and his sadists have inflicted on the Iraqis before you get concerned? I would argue it is you who have no regard for human life.
  • 0

#34 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests

Posted 20 March 2003 - 03:54 AM

ImperalistSwine,

I don't think you are understanding my logic? Didn't I just say that I have been for some wars? WWII definately tops the list. This is different Swine! There is no Hitler trying to conquer Europe. We were there to protect our allies that were under attack. That is completely justifyable.

This war is not! It's unprovoked. It's not necessary.
  • 0

#35 Missouri Mule

Missouri Mule

    Boogiein' along. . .

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 511 posts

Posted 20 March 2003 - 03:57 AM

Nonsense. You don't have a clue about what you are talking about. You haven't seen the intelligence. Yet you claim to have a better understanding than Bush.

You would wait until we have millions of dead Americans before you act. I choose to act to prevent that fact.
  • 0

#36 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests

Posted 20 March 2003 - 03:58 AM

Swine,

Regarding torture - many of our allies practice extreme measures of torture as well. I do not support this type of thing. I just do not think that you solve this by bombs. Right now, the EU is putting pressure on Turkey to stop it's use of torture. I think progress is being made. IF they want to get into EU, this issue is holding them back.

Anyways, I would handle this completely different. I really don't want to get into all the logistics, right now I'm too upset. Thinking more emotionally than logically.
  • 0

#37 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests

Posted 20 March 2003 - 04:03 AM

Swine,

You would wait until we have millions of dead Americans before you act. I choose to act to prevent that fact.



You can't justify killing millions of Iraqis to possibly prevent the lives of americans. Can you see into the future? Perhaps Bush has some crystal ball at the WH we don't know about.
pre-emptive strikes tears at the very moral fabric of America. It's wrong - we would condemn other countries for taking an action such as this. Did you know Hitler used reasoning like this to justify it's invasion into czechoslovakia?
  • 0

#38 kelly

kelly

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2559 posts

Posted 20 March 2003 - 04:07 AM

We can never forget that the two men who the U.S. has most demonized over the past two decades, Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, both collaborated for years with the U.S.; Washington believed their causes were identical and put vast sums at their disposal. There is no greater proof of confusion and ineptness on America's part, and rather than leading the world in a better direction it has usually inflicted incalculable harm wherever it has intervened. Its leaders have been addicted to intervening for its own sake, to save the nation's "credibility," preventing an alleged vacuum of power, or its self-appointed role as the enforcer of regional or global order (which it usually equates with the freedom of American businessmen to make money). The U.S. has refused to accept a much more modest and far less ambitious definition of its national interests, one that is also realistic.

All of its policies in the Middle East have been contradictory and counterproductive. The U.S.' support for Israel is the single most important but scarcely the only cause of the September 11 trauma and the potentially fundamental political destabilization, ranging from the Persian Gulf to South Asia, that its intervention in Afghanistan has triggered. But it has repeatedly seen its most ambitious diplomatic and military efforts produce disasters instead. Its strategy of "triangulating" China and the Soviet Union, essentially to achieve a victory in Vietnam, backfired and accelerated its calamitous loss there. Then there is Guatemala in 1953, Chile in 1973, Angola in 1975, and countless other places where its habitual penchant for activism and intervention produced acute disorders, deaths, and only perpetuated and usually aggravated many nations' difficulties.

There are many serious questions in the world that must be solved if there is to be much greater stability and peace: poverty, illiteracy, human rights, and the like. It was a convenient simplification for the Bush Administration to blame al-Qaeda and "terrorism" for the world's insecurities and to pretend that resolving this challenge would lay to rest many, if not all the others, everywhere. It will not. Moreover, America's military power is irrelevant for meeting virtually all of these issues, much less terrorism, and it was sheer opportunism for Washington to convey the impression that this was the major issue the U.S. now confronts. It is not. There are still countless unresolved problems in Latin America, Africa, and Asia that it is incapable of answering because it is wedded to approaches and institutions that have failed until now and will continue to do so in the future. There is no substitute for political and economic strategies that solve these real challenges rather than worry about what American businessmen and bankers think is to their interest. But since 1946 no administration has thought and acted this way, and instead they have relied on military power to intervene countless times in various places to preserve status quos that perpetuate those economic and social conditions that lead to violence and terrorism.

for what its worth.....
  • 0

#39 LifeisGood

LifeisGood

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1934 posts

Posted 20 March 2003 - 04:07 AM

Plsek, you are a good example of history repeating itself.
  • 0

#40 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests

Posted 20 March 2003 - 04:09 AM

LifeisGood,

In what way???
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2016 Pravda.Ru