 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oerdin
 I believe your assessment of my commits is in error. I have attempted to sum up the situation here in California to the best of my abilities and I have portrayed the parties involved as I have observed them. |
Clearly then, your own prejudices have coloured your opponents to be some kind of unsavory, knee-jerking bleeding heart idiots who oppose everything that stands for Mom, Apple Pie, and the American Way.
quote:
Originally posted by Oerdin
This is not trying to paint my opponents black it is simply examining people's motivations and the root causes of their actions. |
That is laudable, but you have not given any due considerations to their motives before writing them off with a broad stroke.
quote:
Originally posted by Oerdin
If you would reread my previous posts you may notice that I have taken several stands against GWB's policies I however, unlike you, do not reject every policy he proposes out of hand and actually support those policies which coincide with my own political beliefs. |
Your login field indicates you signed up on September 2001. That's right around 9-11. From 9-11 we got the invasion of Afghanistan, then with a leap of faith GWB arrived at the silly Axis of Evil. After that, it's picking on Saddam Hussein time. Pardon me, but which one of Darth Bush's policy did you object to?
But, before you list them, it behooves you to show evidence for this assertion:
quote:
I however, unlike you, do not reject every policy he proposes out of hand |
If not, I'll chalk it up to yet another pathetic attempt of character assassination.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
SirTweek
|
|
I'm a leftist and I agree with the war (I'm also pro-law enforcement). I think to say anyone that is against the war is simply anti-bush or anti-US is wrong. I can't see how millions of people around the world could ride on simple anti-bush sentiment. I also hate to burst the American's bubble but the world doesn't revolve around the US president. Most people I've met, not living in the US, really could give a rat's a@@ who the US president is. Most of them don't see much diffrence between Republicans and Democrats at all. Yes there are some that haven't thought about the issues and only belive "US bad-Peace Good" and the assorted groups of anarchists and all-out pacifists but this is not a majority.
In fact, I think some people are pro-war simply because they are pro-Bush or ultranationalistic. I watched a chat where a person leveled an accusation at a european that the european would be pro-war if it was Clinton and not Bush. No one had even brought up Bush in the conversation. This seemed to be an important issue to this guy that people support Bush and anyone that opposes the war is anti-Bush. I'v'e met others that would support the US no matter what position the US takes. They would never admit the US has made mistakes, acted agressively, or done anything wrong ever in US histroy. My country right or wrong types. Those kind of people sicken me. This is only a small group of pro-war people, just like the small part of unintelligent anti-war people who don't want to look at the issues.
Like what was said it's best to attack the issues not the people.
.....waiting for Agathon and the leftist police to come strip me of my status and take away all my literature.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:26
|
|
On UNSCR 262:
According to the letter of the resolution, Israel is not in compliance, as it has not yet come to an agreement over the Golan Heights with Syria.
As for the PLO, the PLO did recognize 262, which was what they had to do so that the US would open up diplomatic relations with them in 1988.
As for the topic:
I am anti-war, and anti-Bush, and they are not totally separated (even if someone things soemthing is to be done, who does it and how is as important). At the same time, I do think the majority of the anti-war movement is driven by knee jerk reactions and not by annalysis of the situation. I do think distrust of Bush, or simple fear, is a greater motivator than people thinking that this war will simply not make the world a better place, short or long term , for the US.
I think SirTweek is correct that much of the pro-war feeling is just a knee-jerk and based on dieology and politics and not on an annalysis of the sitation and its potentil outcomes.
As for "left-wing police", I think it is incorrect to try to pigeonhole all issue into two camps: that nears Idiobush notions of "Good V Evil" being the only distinction to be made. The world is grey, and that comes in many shades.
As for Bosnia and Kosovo: Neither of these acts were pre-emptive, but reactive. The Bush admin. could have called this war, from the beginning, reactive (reaciting to Saddam's failures at the UN and his cruelty) but instead has decided to focus solely on it as pre-emptive, focusing on a policy of fear and "meteors form the sky" scenerios as the "reason" they give to the public.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
I would like to ask those who oppose to war, under what conditions would you support US going to war with Iraq (like inspectors find weapons of mass destruction and Iraq does not destroy them, ect.)?
From What I have seen, the only main reason they have stated that causes them to be against war is that the weapons inspections are working. Which from all that has happened in the past I dont think they ever will work, but that is just me. From What I have seen here in California it apears that a major motivation is that they hate bush. Now I am not saying all anti war people are like this, but this are the ones i have seen and heard on the news. In France I would say a lot of their opostion would be just anti americanism, and also that they think weapons inspectors are working. I think part of it too is that the French want more of a say in world then they do now. I also think that the fact that US is willing to go in by itself makes a lot of countries in Europe mad too.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
One thing that would be nice to see, but I know will never happen, is that all the protesters of war go to Iraq and protest against Saddam and against his weapons of mass destuction. That I think would be a site to see. But all of this division I think make Saddam think that he can conitnue to keep his weapons and that what he did in past to mess up weapons inspectors will conitnue to work now.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
ONe of major reason I think US wants to invade Iraq too, is not for the oil or US imperialism, I think is that they wanted to get rid of Saddam in the Gulf War, but were convinced not to. They really want to finish the job and correct a misstake, as they see it in their eyes.
As far as the UN goes, it is pretty much powerless to stop any wars or keep peace or dissarm anyone. With all that I have seen happening with this Iraq stuff is the UN will continue to be useless and just debating club, which I think most members of UN would like it to be.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-03-2003 20:32
Viva México!
What an odd logic. No wonder you elect such presidents.
Please spare us your indignation. At least others have the courtesy of providing entertainment value. 
I mean you must seriously must have had a smile on your face when writing that cause it's the most extreme example of the pot calling the kettle black that i've seen on here in a long time. The sheer arrogance of the above statement astounds me. 
|