 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999 time: 21:26
|
|
quote: Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
You silly little man. We who protest this war take freedom and liberty the most seriously. Yes, we think Saddam should go and yes, we think he is a monster who should get his comeupance. However, what we feel is unjustified is this war because Bush was determined to go it alone and dictate his doctrine to the rest of the world. If Britain hadn't sided with us and Powell hadn't been a voice of reason, the UN Security Council would never have been regarded. There was a complete lack of compassion for world opinion, which IS tyranny. Sure, you could say that no one in the past ever got permission to do what they did, but I thought that we were slightly better than that. The U.S. is not much better than the Roman Empire - rights dispensed on OUR terms. However, since we feel this way, you feel it necessary to deem us evil...I'm sorry but I don't see how evil fits into that, how someone who decides not to agree with a simple man in a big white house can be evil. |
We tried to get the UN to be serious about disarmament but were thwarted by France and her allies. I was among those who hoped we could disarm Saddam through the UN. However, that failed.
The US, the UK and their allies are now implementing UNSC 1441.
As to world opinion: clearly it favored UN resolution of the Iraq problem. Does the world opinion know, however, that the UN was thwarted by France?
But the people here on Apolyton are relatively fairly well informed. They know what happened at the UN and STILL they support Saddam and oppose the US and her allies. This is reprehensible.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Sandman
|
 |
Sinister Penguin
Aug 2001 time: 05:26
|
|
quote: As to world opinion: clearly it favored UN resolution of the Iraq problem. Does the world opinion know, however, that the UN was thwarted by France? |
The topsy-turvy world of the warmonger, where by not wanting war, France is guilty of starting the war. The Bush adminstration is composed of people who have always despised the UN, and going through the UN was simply a cynical attempt to gain legitimacy for the war. They were never prepared to accept that they might lose the debate, which they did in spectacular fashion. Having lost the debate, the second resolution was called off, probably because they knew that they'd not even get a majority.
Quite apart from the fact that gases and germs are mediocre weapons, there is no evidence that Iraq posesses them. If none are found, Bush and Blair should resign.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002 time: 21:26
|
|
tia:
Don't be sorry for expressing your opinion, by reducing your thoughts to mere opinion. The examples you provide are of real patriotism, and not mindless flagwaving.
Your uncle was a POW for 8 years, in the service of his country?
And all this forum offers to such a sacrifice is to spit in reply?
Sad. What could motivate someone to survive in such conditions for so long? That is the real question we should be asking here.
Nationalism is represented in the flags of a country, as a symbolic measure of the national values, protected and defended. Despite what we are told, that Nationalism is a spent force; a divider, not a uniter; Nationalism has been THE primary force for at least the last 200 years. The concept of a nation-state, such as the US or Canada simply did not exist previously.
We may burn flags, but to do so not only denies the legitimacy of one nation, but also the rights of all nations. If one believes that nations are a passing fad, only then, can this approach make sense.
Suppose you disagree with the policies of the nation. Don't burn the flag, write a letter. Long after the flag has burned to ashes, the letter will still strike with the same thrust as before.
The irony of Tassadar denying symbolism becomes apparent when the only reason we care about flag burning is because we believe the flag is a symbol representing the entire nation. Otherwise, why would we burn a flag?
Edited: to tidy up grammar.
Last edited by Ben Kenobi on 22-03-2003 at 03:21
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Verto

|
|
quote: Originally posted by obiwan18
tia:
Don't be sorry for expressing your opinion, or to reduce your thoughts to someone's mere opinion. The examples you provide are of real patriotism, and not mere mindless flagwaving.
Your uncle was a POW for 8 years, in the service of his country?
All this forum can respond to such a sacrifice is to spit in reply?
Sad. What could motivate someone to survive in such conditions for so long? That is the real question we should be asking here.
Nationalism is represented in the flags of a country, as a part of the symbolism. Despite what we are told, that nationalism is a spent force, a divider, not a uniter, Nationalism has been THE primary force for at least the last 200 years. The concept of a nation-state, such as the US or Canada simply did not exist before then.
We may burn flags, but to do so not only denies the legitimacy of one nation, but the rights of all nations. If one believes that nations are a passing fad, only then, can this approach make sense.
But if you disagree with the policies of the nation? Don't burn the flag, write a letter. Long after the flag has burned to ashes, the letter with still exist with the same force as before.
The irony of Tassadar denying symbolism becomes apparent when the only reason we care about the flag is because we believe the flag is a symbol representing the entire nation. Otherwise, why would we burn a flag? |
Well said.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|