| THIS IS A READ-ONLY ARCHIVE FROM THE SORABJI.COM MESSAGE BOARDS (1995-2016). |
|---|
MY INSANE LITTLE BRAIN SPINNING LIKE A ROULETTE WHEEL. I ENJOY READING OPINIONS FROM BOTH SIDES BUT I HAVE DETECTED A HINT OF CONFUSION FROM SOME OF YOU. AS I WAS READING THE PAPER RECENTLY, I WAS REMINDED OF THE BEST ADVICE SOMEONE EVER GAVE ME. HE TOLD ME ABOUT THE KISS METHOD (KEEP IT SIMPLE, STUPID!) SO, WITH THIS AS A THEME, I'D LIKE TO APPLY THIS THEORY FOR THOSE WHO DON'T QUITE GET IT. MY HOPE IS THAT WE CAN SIMPLIFY THINGS A BIT AND RECOGNIZE A FEW IMPORTANT FACTS. HERE ARE 10 THINGS TO CONSIDER WHEN VOICING AN OPINION ON THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE: 1) BETWEEN PRESIDENT BUSH AND SADDAM HUSSEIN ... HUSSEIN IS THE BAD GUY. 2) IF YOU HAVE FAITH IN THE UNITED NATIONS TO DO THE RIGHT THING KEEP THIS IN MIND, THEY HAVE LIBYA HEADING THE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND IRAQ HEADING THE GLOBAL DISARMAMENT COMMITTEE. DO YOUR OWN MATH HERE 3) IF YOU USE GOOGLE SEARCH AND TYPE IN "FRENCH MILITARY VICTORIES," THE REPLY WILL BE "DID YOU MEAN FRENCH MILITARY DEFEATS?" 4) IF YOUR ONLY ANTI-WAR SLOGAN IS "NO WAR FOR OIL," SUE YOUR SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR ALLOWING YOU TO SLIP THROUGH THE CRACKS AND ROBBING YOU OF THE EDUCATION YOU DESERVE. 5) SADDAM AND BIN LADEN WILL NOT SEEK UNITED NATIONS APPROVAL BEFORE THEY TRY TO KILL US. 6) DESPITE COMMON BELIEF, MARTIN SHEEN IS NOT THE PRESIDENT. HE PLAYS ONE ON T.V. 7) EVEN IF YOU ARE ANTI-WAR, YOU ARE STILL AN "INFIDEL!" AND BIN LADEN WANTS YOU DEAD, TOO. 8) IF YOU BELIEVE IN A "VAST RIGHT-WING CONSPIRACY" BUT NOT IN THE DANGER THAT HUSSEIN POSES, QUIT HANGING OUT WITH THE DELL COMPUTER DUDE. 9) WE ARE NOT TRYING TO LIBERATE THEM. 10) WHETHER YOU ARE FOR MILITARY ACTION OR AGAINST IT, OUR YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN OVERSEAS ARE FIGHTING FOR US TO DEFEND OUR RIGHT TO SPEAK OUT. WE ALL NEED TO SUPPORT THEM WITHOUT RESERVATION. I HOPE THIS HELPS |
|
8) IF YOU BELIEVE IN A "VAST RIGHT-WING CONSPIRACY" BUT NOT IN THE DANGER THAT HUSSEIN POSES, QUIT HANGING OUT WITH THE DELL COMPUTER DUDE. |
|
|
|
Do you judge people that way too? I guess the guy who pumps my gas is smarter than Gandhi. Time to follow Rick. Dennis Miller has always been a pompous ass, and he certainly ain't much of a comedian.. he sure could read those jokes from behind a desk though, and I guess thats enough to coast on for 15-20 years... |
Miller is using pro wrestling logic. In real life there can be two bad guys. Guess what? There are. 2) IF YOU HAVE FAITH IN THE UNITED NATIONS TO DO THE RIGHT THING KEEP THIS IN MIND, THEY HAVE LIBYA HEADING THE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND IRAQ HEADING THE GLOBAL DISARMAMENT COMMITTEE. DO YOUR OWN MATH HERE 3) IF YOU USE GOOGLE SEARCH AND TYPE IN "FRENCH MILITARY VICTORIES," THE REPLY WILL BE "DID YOU MEAN FRENCH MILITARY DEFEATS?" 4) IF YOUR ONLY ANTI-WAR SLOGAN IS "NO WAR FOR OIL," SUE YOUR SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR ALLOWING YOU TO SLIP THROUGH THE CRACKS AND ROBBING YOU OF THE EDUCATION YOU DESERVE. whats the pro-war slogan then? "no blood for oil" is a pretty cheesy slogan.. however the fact is this is too complicated an issue to put into a slogan: "We support our troops but not the war because theres no threat and oh yeah what about this other guy and hey you're lying about stuff and censoring our opinion and these protection acts are taking our rights away and you changed the name of french fries what are you an asshole?" doesnt fit too well on a placard. you know, this list here is probably even too stupid for Dennis Miller... did he really write this? |
guy. That does not matter, the desired end result is the same |
|
Where will it end? I'll be happy as anyone to see saddam go, but I'm not kidding myself that this war is about stopping human rights abuses, or even that it's a major consideration. |
But I can tell you that the majority are not the product of the guided bombs. and if they are, then the civilians were placed at the military target on purpose. As far as we going around and kick the ass of human rights abusers I like this article |
|
|
|
It'll be fun! We could be like the Democracy Ice Cream Truck, except that it would be an armored division and we'd be handing out Tomahawk missles instead of sno-cones. |
Don't overlook North Korea. I can tell you that the Pentagon and Administration are not. Maybe we will see something happen while in the Middle East. |
(9) Our military no longer is just a fighting force per se, but is asked to preserve oil fields, clear waterways, organize oppressed peoples like the Kurds, feed those without food and water, and under fire distinguish killers from innocents. It is hard to fight a force that employs everything from dolphins to satellites. When it clears Iraq of Saddam Hussein, it will have been done more to feed and help the Iraqi people than all the efforts of the U.N. of the last two decades. I also think it is very important to keep in mind that 95% of "coverage" from MSNBC, CNN & FoxNews is commentary from fromer this and former that. There have been tremendous changes in the Miltary since 1991. And a hell of a lot of changes in attitude and mission since September 2001. |
|
|
:-P |
|
...sounds like this book that was written by this Arwell guy, or was it Urwell, I forget... I think it was called "1985: The Brothering" |
"supporting the troops" - an open question what does this mean to you? some points/questions... 1) Is it something you have to say even if you don't believe it? 2) Even then, the support only goes so far as you hope they don't die. is that it? 3) In addition to that, is the support there from some hoping they don't die, becuase they'll be needed to fight REAL threats that already exist, and ones that will be created because of the current action? 4) what percentage of troops actually support the war? Theres some mighty large consequences of 'quitting' the military... 5) does it have to be said that you support the troops? Do they care? 6) do you actually see the president as 'commander in chief' of the military? I sure as hell don't. 7) has war and 'supporting the troops' become some sort of weird 'dont ask/dont tell' type of thing in the workplace, in public? Can you even speak about this to anyone who isnt on this board? 8) why the hell is any sort of anti-war sentiment now spun as 'against the troops?' - that makes no sense!!! 9) doesnt anyone see the military as a bunch of hired killers? isnt it their job to fight? doesnt that job include the possibility of DYING. is it supposed to be sad, or seen as heroic, filling you with pride? 10) do you see the lives of American soldiers as above an Iraqi civilian? If so, why. 11) Are there levels of bravery? Are certain soldiers really brave at all? Like the ones sitting on a ship lobbing missles at a place that couldnt possibly strike back? 12) What do you think is the American publics idea of 'acceptable losses' - how many troops will die before people really start freaking out. Does the amount of Iraqi civilian casualties matter to anyone and will that change anyones mind? |
|
a-ha hah hahahaha! hell! |
|
|
certainly not in your heart or mind lately, thats for sure... peace protesters in hell, that makes sense. You know how much Jesus hates loving your enemy. he'd never hang out with or feed sinners, no way, no how. read this before you subscribe to painting a movement in one color: Memo to the Peace Movement by Andrew M. Manis As much as I agreed with the sentiments coming from Saturday's antiwar rally in Washington, and as much as I wished I had been there, I nevertheless heard and saw a few notes that made me cringe. As a historian and something of a radical, I certainly agreed with most of what I heard condemning the Bush administration's efforts to exploit America's post 9/11 fear and patriotism just before the midterm elections. But what made me shake my head with dismay was the strategic naivete of some of the crowd. Does this segment of those gathered in Washington really believe it can "win the hearts and minds" of America's "silent majority" with placards that read, "I love Iraq. Bomb Texas" or "The Real Axis of Evil: Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld." How about the elegant "Fuck You, Bush" or the chant of "Ashcroft Sucks, Ashcroft sucks?" No wonder speakers at a later, thankfully much smaller, rally in support of war charged that the "radical left hates America." If I had listened longer, no doubt I would have detected the predictable, now-cliched accusations that those who oppose war in Iraq are part of the "Blame America First" crowd. Thank God, I've seen no reports of any flag burnings. I raise this criticism not out of prudishness, but out of patriotism and pragmatism. In earlier days I've made this mistake myself, having carried a "Nuke the Gipper" sign at a Mondale rally in 1984. But history has taught me that if we really want to convince Americans who don't already agree with us, it would be wiser to avoid being tarred with the anti-American brush. Certainly placards and chants are attempts at humor and hardly real political dialogue. But if we in the peace movement really wish to be relevant in American politics, we cannot repeat the historic mistakes of the anti-Vietnam protests. Instead of playing into the hands of the critics who think we hate America, we must go out of our way to show that protest is patriotic. Martin Luther King managed to convert most of America because he convincingly showed how the protests of the black freedom struggle were "deeply rooted in the American dream." Unlike many in the antiwar movement, protesters in Selma and other civil rights "battlefields" carried American flags; they did not burn them. So my memo to movement organizers carries three suggestions. First, make an American flag the ticket to admission at antiwar rallies. When C-SPAN shows its pictures, let the audience look out over a sea of red, white, and blue. In so doing we can burn into the American consciousness an image that patriotism need not be identified with war-mongering. Second, let speakers and placards underscore that such protests do emerge from ideals that are as American as the Constitution. Given the protections of the First Amendment, protest IS patriotic. Moreover, concern for peace not a radical idea. Inasmuch as it could save thousands of American lives and billions of American dollars, it is really a conservative notion. Finally, while acknowledging connections with Islam and other religions of the world, let pro-peace preachments also emphasize the religious tradition with which MOST Americans still resonate, that of Jesus of Nazareth. Showing that peace-mongering is not only American, but also in the strictest sense, Christian, will go a long way toward convincing the unconverted. After all, since this compassionately conservative president claims Jesus as his most important political influence, the most powerful (and pragmatic) protest I can imagine would be a red, white, and blue placard that read: "Mr. President, what WOULD Jesus do?" ______________ how trace got so callous is beyond me, I wonder if the concept of peace is abstract to him, or he's simply scared of it. I certainly hope he's not as lost as this cartoonist: http://www.inform.umd.edu/News/Diamondback/archives/2003/03/18/cartoon.html |
I want peace for the United States. I want security. That is my job, that is my desire. That is my goal. Ignoring threats that have manifested themselves over the past 25 years has not helped. Removing threats has. If you do not realize that satirical cartoons go to ludicrous lengths to maake a point, I am sorry to hear that. |
|
Here's some interesting numbers: http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/04/03_numbers.html |
|
|
The source for the last number should be evident though. |
|
Again with the criticism that I cannot think for myself. So my goal for peace and security for the United States cannot be one I formed myself, since it is an inherent part of my job. I must be an android |
I've never heard that phrase used by anyone before. Ever. Bravo! |
I want peace for the United States." not once, twice in this thread: Peace for the UNITED STATES... do you want "peace" for the world, or just the U.S.? callous callous callous. Its a judgment call and I'm making it. What is your definition of peace? removal of every threat, or peace of mind? what, then? because the former will never exist, but the latter can if you can learn to deal with the fact that bad people exist, bad things are out there, and you deal with them thoughtfully and with patience and then less people die. are you going to spend your whole life afraid? or angry? is that living? Homer says: "thats not America! Thats not even Mexico!" "I want security" do you really feel that unsafe? are you suspicious of everyone who isnt you? so whats going to bring peace first trace? Fighting or thinking? Do bombs change minds, or cement hate? quote for the day: We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy. -- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, U.S. representative to the International Conference on Military Trials, Aug. 12, 1945 |
"All I have to say is, Once this is over, the Iraqi people better be the freest fucking people on the face of the earth. They better be freer than ME. they better be so fucking free they can FLY. And they better get FED. They better get totally chubby. I want a fuckin' five mile long buffet for those kids - and I want that buffet to be PERMANENT. And I want a multi-million dollar reconstruction contract for Halliburton. God, that would really be so... just." |
God, please, let him be right. Interesting that Bush is going to N. Ireland to watch Blair and Ahern manage the Good Friday agreement. (Do I need to say that yet another reason to admire Blair is that he's the first prime minister since the Troubles began to take the issue seriously and successfully work to putting the situation to rights?) Bush should pick up a few pointers on fine-hand diplomacy. |
-------- Q: Sorry to interrupt, but Mr Powell and Mr Rumsfeld have expressed concern about Syria and Iran and they specifically warned Syria this week. Does it mean that you are going to go with them if they are going to attack these two countries? A: Well they have got absolutely no plans to attack those two countries. What they were saying is that it's important that neither country assists those forces loyal to Saddam who are fighting coalition forces but I think rather than people looking for the sort of conspiracy theories that Iraq one day and then a whole series of countries the next - this is not what this is about. ... Q: Back to the question about Syria and Iran. Do you think you have enough influence with the US Administration to prevent them from taking a military action that you might not be able to support or you might not be willing to support? A: I have no absolutely no plan to do that. Look, there are concerns about the support for terrorism in certain of these countries, that's true. But I have always thought that we can try and deal with these issues in a different way, I mean I think what we need to do is to look at this in really two dimensions. The first is the issue of Iraq which for all the reasons I have given, the issues to do with weapons of mass destruction, at the end of the Gulf War, the way that Saddam has run his country, it is important for us to change the nature of that regime. The second dimension, however, is to bring greater stability to the Middle East and in that my own judgement is the single most important thing we can do is to bring some hope to the situation between Israel and Palestine. I mean, that is, when I talk to people throughout the Middle East, the thing they in fact feel most angry about, very few people support Saddam, anyone who knows the facts knows that he killed hundreds of thousands of people more than the British and the Americans would ever kill in any war of liberation but what they do feel very strongly about is the Middle East peace process and we have got a situation now where the President of the United States of America - he is the first President to do this - has laid out the two state vision, Israel recognised by everyone, confident about its security and a viable Palestinian state. And I can tell you, I believe it is every bit as important that we make progress on that as we get rid of Saddam. --------------- |
yeah right. the guns have been quiet in belfast ever since blair came into play. he dissolved irish representation in the UK government in the end of 2001 because the IRA refused to disarm. |
|
but, these aren't things that can change in a single generation, so, yeah, he is making good first steps. |
Dennis Miller caught in conflicts of interest... and the show hasnt even started yet! |
Dennis Miller - no integrity, no consistency |
