Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Top Gun on September 27, 2002, 11:28:24 am
-
Well, what are you waiting for - http://www.lemonbovril.co.uk/bushspeech/
-
please tell me you don't realy beleve that bull **** in that opening thing
-
bah, are these the demonstrations going on today? Those guys are really a bunch of jokers... :p
Besides, I see no reason in not going for Iraq; it will just be one more hostile nation out of the way. :D
-
ROFL - that's a good one there. :) My bro's favorite was a simple one: "The United States" and "Booooo". :D ;)
-
Lol! that speechmaking thing is a laugh riot! :lol:
As for Bush and his wanting to make war on Iraq, well, I supported him three weeks ago, now I don't. The more I look at this, the more I'm convinced that war on Iraq would compromise the war on terror.
Hmm... let's see, if we go to war with Iraq, saddam will launch his Scuds at Isreal again, this time loaded with chemical and biological weapons. If that happens, Isreal WILL respond and we (the USA) won't be able to stop Israel like we did during the Gulf War. If Israel responds, it could be with nukes.
If we go to war with Iraq, Saddam will pull his troops into the cities and NOT leave them out in the open in the desert like he did last time. Room-to-room urban warfare in Bagdad? That's going to entail a LOT of American casualties. Urban warfare is every attacking general's nightmare. some of you might know about the Warsaw ghetto uprising during World War II. 200 Polish Jew civilians armed with only a couple dozen pistols and lots of Molotov cocktails managed to hold off 3,000 crack German troops armed with machine guns, tanks and flamethrowers for almost six whole months. And that was just in one section of Warsaw!
Urban warfare in Bagdad would mean 200,000 American troops trying to pacify a city of 5 million Iraqis, all of whom would be inclined to fight us, even though they hate Saddam.
If we go to war with Iraq, we'll incense millions of Muslims, a lot of whom will be pissed off enough to join Osama bin laden and fuel his recruiting drive for holy war for years to come. Most of our Muslim "allies" will be forced to withdraw their support for the US war on terror or risk being overthrown by Muslim militants. If the situation gets bad enough, Pakistan could be taken over by Muslim militants. If that happens, Pakistan's nukes could fall into Osama bin Laden's hands or the hands of many like him.
All this for what? Because Dubya is so pissed that he wants to finish what his daddy started? :rolleyes:
Saddam is a bad guy and a tyrant who deserves to be overthrown, but he can wait. Osama bin Laden and Al Queda are the more immediate threat.
-
Hmm... let's see, if we go to war with Iraq, saddam will launch his Scuds at Isreal again, this time loaded with chemical and biological weapons. If that happens, Isreal WILL respond and we (the USA) won't be able to stop Israel like we did during the Gulf War. If Israel responds, it could be with nukes.
But that will be exactly what we want this time. :D (Israel has been wanting an excuse to go after some of the neighboring nations for a while anyway)
I say it is a good idea to deal with Pakistan as well, but the US has enough strength and regional allies to take on both nations without any trouble.
-
:eek:
-
!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Originally posted by CP5670
But that will be exactly what we want this time. :D (Israel has been wanting an excuse to go after some of the neighboring nations for a while anyway)
Is that what we're portrayed as in the western media? War-thirsty warlords who would nuke all our neighbours at the blink of an eye? :doubt: Seems to me that that's the exact situation our neighbours are in concerning us - they are looking for an excuse to wipe us out. :(
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
Hmm... let's see, if we go to war with Iraq, saddam will launch his Scuds at Isreal again, this time loaded with chemical and biological weapons. If that happens, Isreal WILL respond and we (the USA) won't be able to stop Israel like we did during the Gulf War. If Israel responds, it could be with nukes.
Originally posted by CP5670
But that will be exactly what we want this time. :D
Excuse me? Did you say we want Israel to drop the Bomb on Iraq and start a war that will engulf the entire Middle East? If Israel drops the Big One on Iraq, do you know how quickly Syria, Jordan and Egypt will mobilize their troops to attack Israel? Jesus, CP, you can't seriously be suggesting that we want this kind of war that could threaten Israel's very existence!
Originally posted by CP5670
I say it is a good idea to deal with Pakistan as well, but the US has enough strength and regional allies to take on both nations without any trouble.
That's very debatable, CP. As it is right now, wth the war in Afganistan still not completely concluded (Taliban are sneaking back in and hiding among the Afgan populace) and with other US military deployments around the world, our forces are stretched REALLY thin right now.
But even if our forces weren't stretched thin, mounting an attack on Pakistan now would be counter-productive while Musharraf is still in power (he's a nominal ally). And if miltants do take over, why would the US commit such a grave error as to attack a country armed with nukes? Even Bush isn't that stupid! So how can you logically say that we can take on Iraq AND Pakistan?
-
Excuse me? Did you say we want Israel to drop the Bomb on Iraq and start a war that will engulf the entire Middle East? If Israel drops the Big One on Iraq, do you know how quickly Syria, Jordan and Egypt will mobilize their troops to attack Israel? Jesus, CP, you can't seriously be suggesting that we want this kind of war that could threaten Israel's very existence!
Actually, it would not threaten their existence at all simply because the imbalance of power is so great there (compare Israel's military to that of the surrounding forces), and the nation would probably recieve significant support from the US. Besides, most Israelis want to fight against their neighboring countries anyway and settle this issue one and for all; the only reason they have not done so yet is this ridiculous pressure of world opinion, so all they need now is some excuse to keep the EU quiet.
That's very debatable, CP. As it is right now, wth the war in Afganistan still not completely concluded (Taliban are sneaking back in and hiding among the Afgan populace) and with other US military deployments around the world, our forces are stretched REALLY thin right now.
Yes, but no amount of extra military forces there is going to change that anyway; there is little we can do there anyway aside from heavy propaganda (which we really need to go heavy on), but that involves different resources. Our forces may be thinned out, but the thing is that we don't need that many to fight due to the difference in technology; it is what makes all the difference here. (it can just be a repeat of 1991, where they sit back in their ships and launch cruise missiles hundreds of miles away :D)
But even if our forces weren't stretched thin, mounting an attack on Pakistan now would be counter-productive while Musharraf is still in power (he's a nominal ally). And if miltants do take over, why would the US commit such a grave error as to attack a country armed with nukes? Even Bush isn't that stupid! So how can you logically say that we can take on Iraq AND Pakistan?
Well you see, we don't need to actually commit a lot of our men to this. The Indians have long wanted to overrun Pakistan and the only reason they have not done so already is the same reason as with Israel: world pressure. If the US simply gives the go-ahead, I have no doubt that would just go with it. Of course, it will be a good idea to send in commando teams to disable the nukes first, but that should be easier than most think considering that Musharraf's life depends on US support, so it should not be too hard to get the information of their locations from him. (if he is given a choice between his own survival and the survvial of his administration, he will probably go for the former)
Besides, Musharraf is sort of a two-sided guy. Since maybe 50% of these terrorist operations in the world are being conducted from Pakistan with the full support of the government, and this is where the remnants of Al Qaeda now are, it makes sense to go after them. Pakistan has been useful to us in the past, but now they are simply posing yet another threat.
Is that what we're portrayed as in the western media? War-thirsty warlords who would nuke all our neighbours at the blink of an eye? Seems to me that that's the exact situation our neighbours are in concerning us - they are looking for an excuse to wipe us out.
Exactly, so you must wipe them out (their regimes, that is) before they wipe you out; the history of conflict and the cultural inertia there has long since grown too large for any peaceful conclusion. It is now a matter of survival of the fittest.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Is that what we're portrayed as in the western media? War-thirsty warlords who would nuke all our neighbours at the blink of an eye? :doubt: Seems to me that that's the exact situation our neighbours are in concerning us - they are looking for an excuse to wipe us out. :(
Almost sounds like an American talking.
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
As for Bush and his wanting to make war on Iraq, well, I supported him three weeks ago, now I don't. The more I look at this, the more I'm convinced that war on Iraq would compromise the war on terror.
Hmm... let's see, if we go to war with Iraq, saddam will launch his Scuds at Isreal again, this time loaded with chemical and biological weapons. If that happens, Isreal WILL respond and we (the USA) won't be able to stop Israel like we did during the Gulf War. If Israel responds, it could be with nukes.
If we go to war with Iraq, Saddam will pull his troops into the cities and NOT leave them out in the open in the desert like he did last time. Room-to-room urban warfare in Bagdad? That's going to entail a LOT of American casualties. Urban warfare is every attacking general's nightmare. some of you might know about the Warsaw ghetto uprising during World War II. 200 Polish Jew civilians armed with only a couple dozen pistols and lots of Molotov cocktails managed to hold off 3,000 crack German troops armed with machine guns, tanks and flamethrowers for almost six whole months. And that was just in one section of Warsaw!
Urban warfare in Bagdad would mean 200,000 American troops trying to pacify a city of 5 million Iraqis, all of whom would be inclined to fight us, even though they hate Saddam.
If we go to war with Iraq, we'll incense millions of Muslims, a lot of whom will be pissed off enough to join Osama bin laden and fuel his recruiting drive for holy war for years to come. Most of our Muslim "allies" will be forced to withdraw their support for the US war on terror or risk being overthrown by Muslim militants. If the situation gets bad enough, Pakistan could be taken over by Muslim militants. If that happens, Pakistan's nukes could fall into Osama bin Laden's hands or the hands of many like him.
All this for what? Because Dubya is so pissed that he wants to finish what his daddy started? :rolleyes:
Saddam is a bad guy and a tyrant who deserves to be overthrown, but he can wait. Osama bin Laden and Al Queda are the more immediate threat.
In short: if we go to war on Iraq, it will tripple the chances for a final global conflict, one that no-one will win, a war that no-one will survive...
Stargazer.
-
Someone always survives a conflict; the chances of everybody being wiped out are too low for practical purposes. :D
Sorry, but you simply cannot solve everything by "peaceful" methods.
-
I think as long as everything is done properly through the UN it should be OK.
I find most of what CP5670 has said either insane or total crap.
-
Peace is what is insane and total crap; as I remarked earlier here, the western world has become way, way too soft and think that everything can be done through "peace." :p :D
-
For someone who likes maths so much your sense of logic seems to be a sad state.
-
and Isrial would totaly beat everyone's asses down in a major way, if anyone atacked them
-
Originally posted by Blue Lion
Almost sounds like an American talking.
Not sure I see why exactly you wrote that, but I am American... :confused:
-
Originally posted by CP5670
bah, are these the demonstrations going on today? Those guys are really a bunch of jokers... :p
Besides, I see no reason in not going for Iraq; it will just be one more hostile nation out of the way. :D
You seem deluded into actually thinking that what's good for the US as a country is good for its people. If you happen to be a multi billionaire then the use of the word "we" when talking about the US government is wholely justified, otherwise your misguided loyalty to that plutocratic gang of morons makes me laugh. Although the consequenses of an Iraqi war could be disasterous for the US government's diplomatic relations, in which case support for it is wholly justified.
-
So...if the Western world does like Iraq do whatever it wants. Or at the very least, maintain the status quo...then what do we have?
-
I see no reason to provoke Saddam. Besides, we've squandered our surplus already. (Free rent for a month, wow!) If we mobilize troops, we'd go further into deficit, and up gas prices, and thus f--- up the economy even more than it already is. (since deficits = loss of economic confidence)
Besides, the assumption is being made by a lot of people, that the UN inspectors are going to fail again. Saddam doesn't want to risk being overthrown. He'll cooperate.
-
I really have to agree! Bush and Blair combination is worse than Clinton and Blair!
That war against Iraq is going to be a totall bloodshead (sp) if it's set out. Bush is cold blooded and so is Blair. They say they do this in the name of democracy and freedom so tell me, is killing thousonds a path to peace and democracy?
If I were in London, I would go on that demonstration. War doesn't lead anywhere.
By the way, Bush doesn't decide who is going to be a leader of Iraq. The people of Iraq do.
I think that if you americans are smart enough, you should vote for removing Bush from the office as soon as possible and bring someone who doesn't have a brain for milking cows like Bush does. Well, he grew up in texas didn't he?
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Is that what we're portrayed as in the western media? War-thirsty warlords who would nuke all our neighbours at the blink of an eye? :doubt:
Not exactly....but there's a lot more immegrant (SP? AAAGH!) Muslims in Europe than Israelis, and they tend to demonstrate a lot against Israel. This sort of skews the reality a bit.... you also have to recognise that no other western power really has to live under the same threat of (pseudo) internal terrorism and external hostility that Israel does, so it's very hard understand the nature of the situation over there. But I think it's very evident that the only way Israel can ever be 100% secure is by exterminating it's enemies, because it appears that there is no real compromise solution that can be found. I think that's largely stemming from Sharon taking over, when he'd been blamed for starting the previous troubles.
-
Originally posted by Razor
I think that if you americans are smart enough, you should vote for removing Bush from the office as soon as possible and bring someone who doesn't have a brain for milking cows like Bush does. Well, he grew up in texas didn't he?
More people voted for Gore than they did for Bush and he still got into the White House. :doubt:
Election 2000 was the first time I was ever truly disappointed in the U.S. Supreme Court.
But, yeah, Bush grew up in Texas, so he probably knows more about milking oil wells than cows...he's not called the "Toxic Texan" for nothing. :lol:
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
I think that's largely stemming from Sharon taking over, when he'd been blamed for starting the previous troubles.
Small clarification here: Sharon didn't start any trouble. He visited the Temple Mount. The Palestinians used that as an excuse to start making trouble, claiming that he desecrated it or whatever - B.S.
-
hmm muslims complaining about a jewish person visiting a jewish holy site? loads of BS
-
Originally posted by PhReAk
hmm muslims complaining about a jewish person visiting a jewish holy site? loads of BS
Well, to be fair, they consider it to be a holy site as well - to a certain extent - supposedly the rock (of "Dome of the Rock" fame) is the one from which Muhammed ascended to heaven... but the Koran does not mention Jerusalem even once, so... :rolleyes:
-
The one thing I agree with most people here is the tax thing, and this I think is the worst part of the Bush administration. Cutting taxes is of course good for individuals, but for the nation as a whole, during a time of war, it is a road to disaster. :p
For someone who likes maths so much your sense of logic seems to be a sad state.
And how so? Perhaps because I have not been brainwashed by my surrounding culture to think that the universe operates on peace and ethics... :rolleyes:
You seem deluded into actually thinking that what's good for the US as a country is good for its people. If you happen to be a multi billionaire then the use of the word "we" when talking about the US government is wholely justified, otherwise your misguided loyalty to that plutocratic gang of morons makes me laugh. Although the consequenses of an Iraqi war could be disasterous for the US government's diplomatic relations, in which case support for it is wholly justified.
Wait a minute; all I said that this is probably the best choice the US government could make given any government's goals and the current situation. (the Iraqi government will have different "best" actions) That is the only way to objectively judge what is a useful, or "good" action. :D Of course, I want to see the businessmen go down as much as you do (you probably gathered that from the capitalism/communism thread), but they can stay in power at the moment because taking them down so abruptly will mean big problems for the rest of us as well; they can be dealt with in the future when the time arises.
Bush is cold blooded and so is Blair.
I'm not sure if that's true, at least in Bush's case, but if it were, the little respect I have for him would go some notches higher. :D (we need a cold blooded guy who is also both really intelligent and cunning; that would make the ultimate leader ;7)
By the way, Bush doesn't decide who is going to be a leader of Iraq. The people of Iraq do.
Anyone can decide whatever if they have the power to enforce their decision; that is simply how the world works today. :D
-
Dammit, I can't get "Mah fellow Americans" from the speech magnets!
Geez, anything can make a pointless political debate, can't it.:rolleyes:
All this needs is Styxx going on about how he need not know anything about economics to think Communism is stupid, and some newbie screaming about how he wants to "nuke the sand niggers" or something. REALLY. Keep it to threads where you don't look just silly- then, at least, you can be pointless wihtout appearing to yourself to be.
-
I'm not sure if that's true, at least in Bush's case, but if it were, the little respect I have for him would go some notches higher. (we need a cold blooded guy who is also both really intelligent and cunning; that would make the ultimate leader )
That would make a ****head out of him. Thank God he is stupid! Down with Bush! :no: :no:
Anyone can decide whatever if they have the power to enforce their decision; that is simply how the world works today.
That is how the world SHOULD NOT work today. America should care about it self and it's problems not to make military interventions where they like or force others to do what mr Bush wants to. And if someone rejects, what's bush gonna do? Drop a nuke on them? That's tirrany! That's not democracy!
-
Originally posted by Razor
That would make a ****head out of him. Thank God he is stupid! Down with Bush! :no: :no:
Yeah, just imagine how horrible it would be if Bush was smarter than he is now. Then he'd be REALLY dangerous. :nervous:
As it is now, he can't even tie his shoes without Vice President Cheney and Karl Rove (Bush's political advisor) to help him... :wtf: :rolleyes:
-
I wouldn't be so relieved. I mean, he doesn't really make much of a secret of the fact that he doesn't make many of the decisions or anything himself... MAYBE choosing Iraq, but it's almost TOO obvious that that would be Little Bush's style. AND it was on the list anyway. Truth is, a bunch of people much more competent, and much less interested in the common man's well-being, is in charge. No shady government conspiracies, no NWO, no Jewish/Freemason/Rockefeller plot, just those good old boys, the heads of major corporations. Mostly oil, yeah, but I think it's a bit silly to assume just that.
I mean, really. Nobody's hiding ANYTHING about it. Many of Bush's bills have been clearly written by and for the richer parts of major industries. But even if Little Bush came out and MADE A FRIGGIN' SPEECH about it, people'd still go on inagining HE was the one in charge. People are stupid. And part of being stupid, apparently, is that they'l ***** endlessly about what officials say, but go along with whatever the government does, like cows to the slaughter. WORDS. And that's all that matters these days- have the right rhetoric, the freshest buzzwords- "terrorist!", and you could take over the world. More than that, you could take over the world and grind up all the people to make pastries, so long as you phrased it correctly. Mainstream "liberals" fret over what we can and can't call arabs and blacks, while the cops arrest them on no charges at all and shoot them like dogs for sport. "Conservatives" blather about "bipartisanship", meaning "me first". **** 'em all- they deserve the world they make. As for the rest of us, the only hope we have is the certianity that he will succeed in making himself a tin-pot dictator, and then we pothead anarchist free-love dirty hippies can come out to play again. And this time, it'll be for keeps.
Think the Pentagon'll make a good Ecstasy lab?
-
That is how the world SHOULD NOT work today. America should care about it self and it's problems not to make military interventions where they like or force others to do what mr Bush wants to. And if someone rejects, what's bush gonna do? Drop a nuke on them? That's tirrany! That's not democracy!
I don't how it "should" or "should not" be, but this is simply the way it is, and it will remain this way for at least for our lifetimes whether we like it or not. It may indeed be tyranny, but that is fine since nobody can do much about it.
I think that this whole concept of the democracy/republic is pretty much a farce; it may well be that it is actually impossible for such a system to exist for long outside of a small group. The so-called "free wills" of the people can be bended to suit various purposes anyway, so it's basically an issue of whoever is the best at such rallying.
People are stupid. And part of being stupid, apparently, is that they'l ***** endlessly about what officials say, but go along with whatever the government does, like cows to the slaughter. WORDS. And that's all that matters these days- have the right rhetoric, the freshest buzzwords- "terrorist!", and you could take over the world. More than that, you could take over the world and grind up all the people to make pastries, so long as you phrased it correctly.
Ah, this was well said. That is exactly how the world works, and it is how it has always been since the dawn of man.
-
Possibly. Still, it works NOW, and that's the part that's annoying. Though useful.
-
Just wanted to know, from the brits here, if they are proud to be in the UKA? The United Kingdom of America:rolleyes: I wonder if tony-blair.com is a link to george-w-bush.com ???
-
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
See signature
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
-
(http://poetry.rotten.com/mother-of-all-sandcastles/mother-of-all-sandcastles.jpg)
Bush: To the people who... uh who.... created this autrocity... we will find you, root out all of you from your holes in the ground... we will catch you and bring you to justice for bringing an american past time of making sandcastles into a weapon of terror...
"i...i...i... fool... fool me once.... er... (whispers to aide) i forgot my line..."
Bush (con't)... I plan... to make our beaches safer... for kids to play in the sand and not see those airliners in the grains as they build there castles, tall... stro...stro..strong... like our engineers who built the WTC... who... ahh sh*t! Were just gonna do what we shoulda done in the first place! WHERES DA DAMN BUTTON!?! :lol:
(bush is such a dork... :rolleyes: )
-
no no no, he's not a dork, that's simply how the saying goes in texas. Some states do things differently than others. You may say soda, where as in wyoming, they might call it pop. You say potato, i say potato. Your State may execute retard prison immates for fun, other states might not enjoy that.
:D
"We also have a saying back home too, it's called "How the **** do you get into office?" " ~ Damon Wayans :D
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
no no no, he's not a dork, that's simply how the saying goes in texas. Some states do things differently than others. You may say soda, where as in wyoming, they might call it pop. You say potato, i say pota to. Your State may execute retard prison immates for fun, other states might not enjoy that.
:D
"We also have a saying back home too, it's called "How the **** do you get into office?" " ~ Damon Wayans :D
pota? in puerto rico & NYC we call people who call us dumb names, AND cant speak proper AMERICAN english and is too much of a cowboy for his own good, A---> PUTA!
:nod:
-
hehe i didn't mean to use that. I know what it means in spanish, lemme fix that :)
-
lol :lol: :D
Actually I wouldn't be surprised if he said something like that during a speech... :p
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Small clarification here: Sharon didn't start any trouble. He visited the Temple Mount. The Palestinians used that as an excuse to start making trouble, claiming that he desecrated it or whatever - B.S.
The point is that he gave them an excuse. And as you said, they considered it holy, and he should have been aware of the consequences - especially as the Palestinians already regard him as a war criminal.
In retrospect, it almost seems a calculated move to gain power by sabotaging the peace process.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
The point is that he gave them an excuse. And as you said, they considered it holy, and he should have been aware of the consequences - especially as the Palestinians already regard him as a war criminal.
In retrospect, it almost seems a calculated move to gain power by sabotaging the peace process.
They consider it holy, the Jews consider it holy, and the Christians consider it holy - so what? Only Moslems should be able to visit without fearing for their lives?? Screw that.
I could say the same kind of thing about Arafat travelling through Bethlehem. Birthplace of Jesus and all that, holy place, etc etc - and Arafat is, well... a terrorist, at the very least. :doubt:
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
They consider it holy, the Jews consider it holy, and the Christians consider it holy - so what? Only Moslems should be able to visit without fearing for their lives?? Screw that.
I agree. The Second Intifada has lasted more than two years and it all started because Sharon visited a holy site? Since when is that a high crime?
The Palestinians used Sharon's visit as an excuse to start the uprising, nothing more. If it was just because of Sharon's visit, this intifada would have burned itself out long ago.
Originally posted by Sandwich
I could say the same kind of thing about Arafat travelling through Bethlehem. Birthplace of Jesus and all that, holy place, etc etc - and Arafat is, well... a terrorist, at the very least. :doubt:
There was a Muslim woman here at law school for the spring semester and for the summer; she was taking some L.L.M. classes, I think. When I had just seen news of a new suicide bombing on the news and I told her that Arafat was the terrorist responsible for the bombings, she actually said to me that "Arafat is a freedom fighter." Her exact words!
I was so disgusted with her after that comment I never associated with her again. Every time she showed up, I made excuses and left. Thank God she finally finished her L.L.M. classes and left when the fall semester began.
Anyone who approves the calculated murder of innocent civilians or does nothing to stop it is no friend of freedom. And anyone who says that Arafat is motivated by the welfare of his people is either a liar or a fool.
-
well if firefighters fight fire... then what do freedom fighters fight?
-
This isn't a view about the rights and wrongs but - one mans terriorist is another mans freedom fighter. No don't similar view were expressed during the American War of Indepence. The British saw them as terriorists and the Americans as hero's. Who was right? Who was wrong?
And about Bushs war on Iraq. Remember he's got weapons or mass destruction, he wasn't democratically elected and wants to wage war on smaller nations. And Saddams not much better either.
-
Originally posted by Tar-Palantir
No don't similar view were expressed during the American War of Indepence. The British saw them as terriorists and the Americans as hero's.
:rolleyes: No, the British saw them as rebels, which was a perfectly accurate description. They rebelled against a ruling nation, fought armed forces to armed forces, and eventually won.
Getting back to my home turf, if all the Palestinians did these last 2 years was make attacks on Israeli soldiers and military targets, as opposed to the mix of soldiers and civillians that they have been attacking, then - as much as I dislike the battling and all - fine. When you rise up to oppose a nation, that nation's military is a valid target. You declare war, both sides fight it out, and that's that.
But the Palestinians aren't that stupid - they know that if it were a "simple" matter of "them" against "us", we'd win, hands down. So out-and-out war isn't an option for them. But instead of choosing the path of a political battle (one which, through the years, has always been hampered by their terrorist attacks on civillian targets), they chose to substantially increase the terrorisim. Not too smart, I say. Especially considering that Arafat was offered 95% (approx. - the exact number escapes me) of the "territories" (Judea, Samaria, and Gaza) by Barak through political negotiations, and refused to take it.
-
Actually, for their time, the American rebels WERE terrorists. At a time when the Napoleonic square was the one strategy in action, they fought guerilla-style and massacred thousands more than would have died if they'd stuck to big, clunky napoleonic squares crashing into each other. And securedd an advantage that proved a winning one in the process- in the war ideals of the time, this DID amount to terrorism.
I agree on the soldier matter- as far as I'm concerned, anyone in any combat capacity of the military can't expect much to die, and seeing as how they can defend themselves adequately (or more than adequately, in this case)... I understand that Israel's one of those nations that takes drafting to such an extreme that everyone's technically in the military, which is a nasty thing for the government to do, but doesn't change affairs much. But that's not the form of war that's being fought these days- poor nations, stronger tactics. And since all of the wars these days involve VERY poor nations, total war is the strategy of the day. It's quite an effective, if a bloody and heartless, strategy, actually. Long tradition of usage.
-
by the way, isn't arafat stuck inside his office/headquarters/bunker place right now? like literally, israel like demolished the rest of his complex and so he can't get out ?
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
by the way, isn't arafat stuck inside his office/headquarters/bunker place right now? like literally, israel like demolished the rest of his complex and so he can't get out ?
The Israelis just pulled back their cordon of Arafat's buildings, so he might be able to get out and smile for the cameras. Whatever. :doubt:
The sooner that treacherous worm dies, the better off everyone in the Middle East will be.
I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Israelis dance in the streets the day Arafat dies of a heart attack (fat f*ck that he is). God/Jehovah/Allah/Yahweh knows I'll be celebrating that day. ;7 :D :cool:
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Actually, for their time, the American rebels WERE terrorists. At a time when the Napoleonic square was the one strategy in action, they fought guerilla-style and massacred thousands more than would have died if they'd stuck to big, clunky napoleonic squares crashing into each other. And securedd an advantage that proved a winning one in the process- in the war ideals of the time, this DID amount to terrorism.
No, you've got your terms mixed-up again. Guerilla warfare is not the same as terrorisim. Guerilla warfare involves fighting from "the shadows", quick strikes and then pulling back before the enemy can respond, taking advantage of the greater maneuverability and coordination inherent in a small force as opposed to a larger, full-scale military machine. But the use of such tactics does not nessecarily come hand in hand with attacking defenseless civillian targets.
Terrorisim, by and large, employs guerilla tactics simply because situations where terrorisim is used are, for the most part, a matter of a small group fighting a group that has a large military machine to defend itself. In order to be effective at all against that large military machine, guerilla tactics are employed in strikes against civillian targets and the military forces defending those civillians.
Originally posted by Stryke 9
I understand that Israel's one of those nations that takes drafting to such an extreme that everyone's technically in the military, which is a nasty thing for the government to do, but doesn't change affairs much.
Here's how it goes in Israel: upon reaching the age of 18, men and women alike are drafted into serving in the military. The guys for 3 years, and the girls for 1.5+ years (not completely sure on the exact time). After completion of their mandatory service period, the women are released into civillian life, never to be bothered again, whereas the men are called up for ~25 days of reserve duty per year, until the age of 45 for the paper-pushers or 40 for the combat soldiers (I'm not completely sure about those last ages, but it's in that general range). In between the reserve periods, the guys (and I am in this situation) do not carry any weapons from the army or anything like that. They (we) are, for all intents and purposes, defenseless civillians (with military background).
As far as armed civillians goes, one can get a gun liscence here without too much trouble if one is eligble. Main factors for elegibility are the location of one's home or work - if either in inside the Green Line (Judea, Samaria or Gaza - a.k.a. the "Occupied Territories"), then one is quite likely to be issued a gun liscence. Also, if one was a certain rank in the military, one can automatically get a gun liscence if one so desires. Such rank, however, requires one to serve in the military beyond the mandatory 3 years.
Originally posted by Knight Templar
by the way, isn't arafat stuck inside his office/headquarters/bunker place right now? like literally, israel like demolished the rest of his complex and so he can't get out ?
Not quite - he can physically get out - it's not like all his exits have been sealed or anything. But the compound is completely surrounded, so as to prevent the escape of the dozens of terrorists that have taken refuge in Arafat's offices.
Originally posted by Su-tehp
The Israelis just pulled back their cordon of Arafat's buildings, so he might be able to get out and smile for the cameras. Whatever. :doubt:
Yeah, we did, but we're not gonna leave completely without getting those terrorists. That's the whole reason we went in there to begin with, and leaving before they are apprehended would be idiotic.
-
Not quite - he can physically get out - it's not like all his exits have been sealed or anything. But the compound is completely surrounded, so as to prevent the escape of the dozens of terrorists that have taken refuge in Arafat's offices.
excellence
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
guerilla tactics are employed in strikes against civillian targets and the military forces defending those civillians.
Exactly.
Terrorism is, essentially, any militant act by an organized political faction outside the bounds of traditional warfare, meant expressly to demoralize the enemy population. There you go.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Exactly.
Terrorism is, essentially, any militant act by an organized political faction outside the bounds of traditional warfare, meant expressly to demoralize the enemy population. There you go.
If by "traditional warfare" you mean military targets, then yes.
-
"Traditional warfare" would be the bit with two groups of people shooting at each other, dropping bombs on each other, etc.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
"Traditional warfare" would be the bit with two groups of people shooting at each other, dropping bombs on each other, etc.
Right - both are armed, both are reasonably capable of defending themselves.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
If by "traditional warfare" you mean military targets, then yes.
Originally posted by Stryke 9
"Exactly.
Terrorism is, essentially, any militant act by an organized political faction outside the bounds of traditional warfare, meant expressly to demoralize the enemy population. There you go. "
i agree and disacgree with stryke in a way.
funny as how terrorism has so many defenitions and every has there own version of these defenitions. if u look in a dictionary, terrorism is defined as per-say "tomato" where as in a political science meaning or law enforcement, it means "ketchup". in other words same thing or same "things that make it what it is", but 2 diffrent ways its described, but in the end its still the same concept.
a good book i recomend is the "Critical Views of September 11" By: Eric Hershberg and Kevin W. Moore. it has contemporary essays that i can only describe as "wow". i think in reality sandwich has a better "view" of terrorism and politics simply cause of his location and military experience. others are basing there knowledge on what they read or hear. so its good to have "an insider" out there. cause frankly i'd believe sandwich before id believe cnn.
if anyone checks out the book, they will discover that terrorism, sadly no matter how its sugar coated, is performed by anyone. any-government; thus is political terrorism. it would logicaly explain why they WTC and pentagon (although became obvious for some later) that why they were targets and not "Projects full of thousands of families".
if the gov keeps saying, there out to kill as many americans as they can, then (although the WTC coincidently can contain thousands of lives a day), only "Government" targets were hit? The WTC wasnt a privately owned office complex. the WTC itself was 70% government, even pataki had his albany offices there too. he ran his own state from there most of his last term. it just so happens that the WTC was a public/government area (The port authority is a co-owned government department by NJ/NY and has run the WTC since its construction had begun.) and thats why most casulties were civilian.
the pentagon is obviously military. so it needs no explanation.
and the suposet plane that was heaidng towards washington, the whitehouse is clearly government so thats self explanitory.
as much as our own gov says that there out to kill as many americans as they can, if this was the case, then why didnt they fly the planes into say the trump tower where there around it thousands of families live? or why not into hosing developments or projects where they could kill hundreds of families in a close area? etc etc etc. the government says "al qadea" was to kill as many people as they can, where as if u watch them damn videos of laden etc, the translations there and by the media state there after the infidels, as hard as that is to believe, there refering to the government themselves. Bush's (senior and current) government. Clinton only delt with the bombing of the USS Cole so what then? (the ethics of international Political terrorism).
as far as people are concerned, were only getting hit @ "specific" targets just like our "smart weaponry" agiasnt them, but they are just slopy and ended up killing 3000 -/+ civilians and FDNY- law enforcment.
so in the terms of conventional warfare, the united states has no enemies that threaten its soveriegnty. nation states sorta ceased to be enemies (major nations atleast). only nations still *****in (excuse the language) is always the left overs of the cold war, etc., n. korea/s. korea, rebels in india, isreal and palastine (no state yet officially), iran, iraq etc. so one can argue, like now, why hit iraq? cause they threaten us? nope, they threaten our so-called intrests... now we trying to get oil in africa. to me this whole **** sounds like bush is trying to be like franklin roosevelt when he sent naval ships to south america back in the 1900's to open shipping lanes up down there and in panama.
-
That's not even really questionable. While the WTC towers were still standing, they were almost universally recognized as symbols of rapacious capitalist greed, ond the effects of such globally- even people who didn't feel there was anything wrong with corporate greed and screwing over foreign countries recognized that. The symbol of the exploding trade towers was widely beloved in some counterculture circles until it actually happened, which just goes to show that the "radical" left these days is pretty much a buncha weak-kneed hypocrites. Anyway. Nobody is trying to kill all Americans. Aside from the fact that it wouldn't accomplish much, it'd be damned hard to do. Possibly some groups wouldn't mind doing so, if they were able to, but nobody even remotely fitting the description of functionally sane has that on their agenda. Ignore the propoganda- Osama bin Laden is not insane, at least on any level that deals with tactics. He's brilliant, and he hates us, and doesn't care if we're alive or dead. I can understand the sentiment. But he wasn't even thinking about the death toll when he planned the attack- he was sending a clear message to the world, and particularly to the US, that the Middle East was not to be ****ed with, by striking at the two most powerful, "evil" symbols in the US- the symbol of American greed and shallow materialism, and the symbol of death and jingoism. At the time, I can guarantee there wasn't a doubt in anyone's mind that everyone would get the message. Unfortunately for them (and for a good number of civilians) they miscalculated the effect a massive civvie death toll would have, and didn't take into account our tendency to forget that which is inconvienient to our causes. Next to nobody remembers how hated the WTC in particular was now- now it's remembered as a symbol much the same as the Statue of Liberty, only with hundreds of people in it.
Tactical error, and an unfortunate one for all involved. In my opinion, if they'd skipped the WTC and concentrated on finishing off the Pentagon, though their message about economic meddling would have gone unsaid, people would've gotten the point, and nobody would be in this mess the world's in now (never mind that no real civilians would be dead. Anyone who has any business at all in the Pentagon is by denfinition in the business of killing, and they have none of my sympathies- and few of the rest of the worlds'. Note how much the Pentagon attack was minimized as a consideration)
And "terrorism" has gained the same usage as "communism" had until recently. It's anyone or anything you don't like. Thus, drugs are terrorists, anyone who doesn't want World War III is "supporting the terrorists", and we'd like to allow free trade and open our borders but the terrorists would take advantage.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
That's not even really questionable. While the WTC towers were still standing, they were almost universally recognized as symbols of rapacious capitalist greed, ond the effects of such globally- even people who didn't feel there was anything wrong with corporate greed and screwing over foreign countries recognized that. The symbol of the exploding trade towers was widely beloved in some counterculture circles until it actually happened, which just goes to show that the "radical" left these days is pretty much a buncha weak-kneed hypocrites. Anyway. Nobody is trying to kill all Americans. Aside from the fact that it wouldn't accomplish much, it'd be damned hard to do. Possibly some groups wouldn't mind doing so, if they were able to, but nobody even remotely fitting the description of functionally sane has that on their agenda. Ignore the propoganda- Osama bin Laden is not insane, at least on any level that deals with tactics. He's brilliant, and he hates us, and doesn't care if we're alive or dead. I can understand the sentiment. But he wasn't even thinking about the death toll when he planned the attack- he was sending a clear message to the world, and particularly to the US, that the Middle East was not to be ****ed with, by striking at the two most powerful, "evil" symbols in the US- the symbol of American greed and shallow materialism, and the symbol of death and jingoism. At the time, I can guarantee there wasn't a doubt in anyone's mind that everyone would get the message. Unfortunately for them (and for a good number of civilians) they miscalculated the effect a massive civvie death toll would have, and didn't take into account our tendency to forget that which is inconvienient to our causes. Next to nobody remembers how hated the WTC in particular was now- now it's remembered as a symbol much the same as the Statue of Liberty, only with hundreds of people in it.
Tactical error, and an unfortunate one for all involved. In my opinion, if they'd skipped the WTC and concentrated on finishing off the Pentagon, though their message about economic meddling would have gone unsaid, people would've gotten the point, and nobody would be in this mess the world's in now (never mind that no real civilians would be dead. Anyone who has any business at all in the Pentagon is by denfinition in the business of killing, and they have none of my sympathies- and few of the rest of the worlds'. Note how much the Pentagon attack was minimized as a consideration)
And "terrorism" has gained the same usage as "communism" had until recently. It's anyone or anything you don't like. Thus, drugs are terrorists, anyone who doesn't want World War III is "supporting the terrorists", and we'd like to allow free trade and open our borders but the terrorists would take advantage.
well put bro, i agree bin laden is not insane, infact, he's a very sane man with the intelligence to supress his own people into thinking (using religion), into doing his bidding, the day he straps a bomb on his chest and blows some **** up lol bin laden is insane. so yes hes very sane, sadly sick sadistic and this ussually makes a brilliant man in the wrong ways of life. oh well NOBODY are angels, not even us americans, but like everyone sez, killing is killing, and its not justafiable by any means etc.; back tot he topic @ hand, make ur own bush speech, i wonder, what he would say if he saw this gam screen...
(http://universohalflife.com/archivos/galeria/imagenes/counter-strike%203.jpg)
-
Originally posted by deep_eyes
well put bro, i agree bin laden is not insane, infact, he's a very sane man with the intelligence to supress his own people into thinking (using religion), into doing his bidding, the day he straps a bomb on his chest and blows some **** up lol bin laden is insane. so yes hes very sane, sadly sick sadistic and this ussually makes a brilliant man in the wrong ways of life.
He's sane enough to hide in a cave while his followers get slaughtered, yeah. Bin Laddie talks a great game, but you'll never see him sacrifice himself for his cause; he wants to be the new religious ruler of the Middle East. He's a coward. An extraordinarily clever coward, but a coward nonetheless.
Originally posted by deep_eyes
oh well NOBODY are angels, not even us americans, but like everyone sez, killing is killing, and its not justafiable by any means etc...
Actually killing is by definition justifiable; that's what separates it from murder, which ISN'T justifiable.
Using a plane as a guided missile to kill thousands of non-combatant civilians = not justifiable, thus = mass murder.
Bombing the Taliban because Osama bin Laden, the terrorist who attacked us, is being sheltered by the Taliban = justifiable retaliation for an attack on American sovereign soil = justifiable killing, which in turn = NOT murder.
Pretty simple to understand, hmm? :nod:
-
Wiping out entire civilian villages of Afghans because they happen to live in the wrong country= not justifiable= mass murder. Can say much the same things about either side, in the current circumstances. This is not one of those very rare conflicts between good and evil, it's just a squabble between two different types of evil over who gets the spoils of what's left of good.
Anyway. That's not an actual game screen, and it wouldn't be particularly upsetting if it were. After all the "kill Osama", "kill Hussein", and "Kill the Arabs" Java applets that flooded the internet until fairly recently, I think the jihadists can be allowed their ins.
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
He's sane enough to hide in a cave while his followers get slaughtered, yeah. Bin Laddie talks a great game, but you'll never see him sacrifice himself for his cause; he wants to be the new religious ruler of the Middle East. He's a coward. An extraordinarily clever coward, but a coward nonetheless.
Actually killing is by definition justifiable; that's what separates it from murder, which ISN'T justifiable.
Using a plane as a guided missile to kill thousands of non-combatant civilians = not justifiable, thus = mass murder.
Bombing the Taliban because Osama bin Laden, the terrorist who attacked us, is being sheltered by the Taliban = justifiable retaliation for an attack on American sovereign soil = justifiable killing, which in turn = NOT murder.
Pretty simple to understand, hmm? :nod:
then why did the US support a rebel alliance in south america decades ago overthrow a DEMOCRATIC NATION the US at first was helping, then straight turned there back on?? how many people have been killed by american military where as it was justafiyable to kill even there civilians? im not saying that damn we shouldnt fight back, cause i was there when the WTC got hit and saw it and saw people die, as did thousands did first hand around the site, but to say everything we do is justafyable, isnt. because simply put we have done alot of things to other nations and taken advantage of them.
"with a military behind you (the senator/leader), you can be VERY Political".
-
I say everything is fully justifyable; the terrorist actions, our actions, whatever. All the justification that is required is "we can do it; you don't like it, too bad!" :D And that is how things work; if the capability exists, it is already justified.
-
Originally posted by deep_eyes
then why did the US support a rebel alliance in south america decades ago overthrow a DEMOCRATIC NATION the US at first was helping, then straight turned there back on?? how many people have been killed by american military where as it was justifiable to kill even their civilians?
If the South American country you're talking about is Chile or maybe Argentina, I agree with you. CIA may have known about Operation Condor (a conspiracy between South American dictators to eliminate leftist dissident activists that fled across national borders and protested their home governments from a different South American country) and let it happen without warning the activists. Thousands of people were impisoned as political prisoners and most of them were never seen again. Any accomplices of this in the US government have nothing but my complete contempt. I'm from Argentina and my parents knew people, mostly neighbors and acquaintances, who were "disappeared" during the 1970s and 1980s and never saw them again.
This sort of thing was DEFINITELY NOT justifiable. CIA was complicit in this because they figured is was better to side with repressive dictators rather than democratically elected socialists and democratically elected communists. :rolleyes:
Originally posted by deep_eyes
im not saying that damn we shouldnt fight back, cause i was there when the WTC got hit and saw it and saw people die, as did thousands did first hand around the site, but to say everything we do is justafyable, isnt. because simply put we have done alot of things to other nations and taken advantage of them.
I never said EVERYTHING we did was justifiable (see above). But there's no question that the war in Afganistan was justified. It's a shame about the Afgan civilian casualties, but that illustrates the difference between countries like the USA and Israel and the terrorists like Al Queda and the Palestinian militants: We do everything in our power to minimize civilian casualties as possible (even as we realize that civilian casualties are impossible to completely avoid in wartime) while the terrorists go out of their way to maximize civilian casualties.
Let there be no doubt that America and Israel are made up of the good guys. :nod:
Originally posted by deep_eyes
"with a military behind you (the senator/leader), you can be VERY Political".
Deep Eyes, who is this quoted from? What senator or leader said this, and is this an exact quote?
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
If the South American country you're talking about is Chile or maybe Argentina, I agree with you. CIA may have known about Operation Condor (a conspiracy between South American dictators to eliminate leftist dissident activists that fled across national borders and protested their home governments from a different South American country) and let it happen without warning the activists. Thousands of people were impisoned as political prisoners and most of them were never seen again. Any accomplices of this in the US government have nothing but my complete contempt. I'm from Argentina and my parents knew people, mostly neighbors and acquaintances, who were "disappeared" during the 1970s and 1980s and never saw them again.
This sort of thing was DEFINITELY NOT justifiable. CIA was complicit in this because they figured is was better to side with repressive dictators rather than democratically elected socialists and democratically elected communists. :rolleyes:
I never said EVERYTHING we did was justifiable (see above). But there's no question that the war in Afganistan was justified. It's a shame about the Afgan civilian casualties, but that illustrates the difference between countries like the USA and Israel and the terrorists like Al Queda and the Palestinian militants: We do everything in our power to minimize civilian casualties as possible (even as we realize that civilian casualties are impossible to completely avoid in wartime) while the terrorists go out of their way to maximize civilian casualties.
Let there be no doubt that America and Israel are made up of the good guys. :nod:
Deep Eyes, who is this quoted from? What senator or leader said this, and is this an exact quote?
Well put, actually i wasnt disagreeing with u on some points, i totally agree with you, and no u didnt say anything, i was stating a rhetoric question. this the first time a good convo came out of the forum for a min. its late so ima reply to this tomorrow its alot lol.
-
Aah, a fellow Machiavellian. I LIKE this side of you, CP!:D
Anyway. I think the thing about "minimizing civilian casualties" is highly questionable. However, all the information anyone has about the current situation is essentially different flavors of bull****, and thus there's no point in arguing about it. Let's just say that there's just as much evidence that the US (and particularly Israel) don't give a **** about the lives of civilians, and make nice words about peace and love while dropping bombs on children, as there is to support the claim that we're not that bad. Very little, either way, because the propoganda machine's still pretty damn efficient on both sides. Don't rely on it to back up your arguments, because it's not likely either side is telling the truth. It's not worth arguing on, because nobody knows anything about this particular situation, but we DO know that the US is losing what repute it had for supporting human rights (no secret that the military's torturing POWs in Guantanamo and making arrests without warrants or specific charges), and we do have a long tradition of simply killing everything in sight when we go to war. Israel, well, I think everyone already has heard enough about THAT.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Is that what we're portrayed as in the western media? War-thirsty warlords who would nuke all our neighbours at the blink of an eye? :doubt: Seems to me that that's the exact situation our neighbours are in concerning us - they are looking for an excuse to wipe us out. :(
Actually the western media is pretty !@#% liberal. I do not think it reflects the majority of what intelligent people think. (BTW I live in the US, am a ConSerVative, and am proud of it!)
And if some of you want to rag on George Bush, remember Sudan was willing to give us Bin Laden but Bill Clinton didn't take the offer.
-
So? At least under Clinton we didn't have arrests without warrants, or legalized torture. Don't get me wrong, I love Bush, but only because he's going to make it so damn easy for us to rebuild the old revolutionary war machine and start over again from where it went wrong 40 years ago. DNC ain't got nothin' on what we'll be able to do to a GENUINE dictator!
And as for the liberal media... [spits]. Uh-huh. You ever turn on the radio, dude? The whole "liberal news media conspiracy" is a joke, and has been for years. Can't say there's much more of a "conservative news media conspiracy", but at least we leftists (correction: at least we true leftists, not those half-assed Democratic-party crap-your-pants-if-you-hear-"niggardly" fascist "liberals" who are more bigoted and vile than any redneck I've ever met) have the sense not to run around squawking about it. No. Such. Bleeding. Thing. I have yet to hear a SINGLE WORD against the war in ANY of the newspapers, and I happen to be in the range of pretty much the most "liberal" rag around, the Washington Post.
-
So? At least under Clinton we didn't have arrests without warrants, or legalized torture.
This is one thing I like about Bush, actually. :D
I am fairly radical by nature, but more in the line of the communist warmonger radical rather than your usual moralistic liberal of today. :D Both parties have gotten some things right and some things wrong, but the current distinctions are really messy; the guys called "conservatives" sometimes like change and the guys called "liberals" sometimes want to prevent change, and the names do not really make much sense.
-
I know. Look at the party platforms. I know it sounds trite, but it's Tweedledum and Tweedledee- all they really know is, they disagree. All else, it's up for grabs. Hence abortion, race laws, etc. become "liberal" causes and more military government, quasi-theocratic rule, etc. "conservative" ones. Which is why the split from the Old Left in the first place- they're just as deadly as the rightists, but at least with them, we know what we're dealing with. Democrats, hearing you're an anarchist, put their shoulders around you all chummy-chum-chum while reaching for your wallet and then a stiletto for your back. "Conservatives" of pretty much every flavor openly bare their teeth to you, and that helps us get strength in numbers when we fight back.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
I have yet to hear a SINGLE WORD against the war in ANY of the newspapers, and I happen to be in the range of pretty much the most "liberal" rag around, the Washington Post.
Does The Millitant still Exist?
-
I believe not.
-
I know. Look at the party platforms. I know it sounds trite, but it's Tweedledum and Tweedledee- all they really know is, they disagree. All else, it's up for grabs. Hence abortion, race laws, etc. become "liberal" causes and more military government, quasi-theocratic rule, etc. "conservative" ones. Which is why the split from the Old Left in the first place- they're just as deadly as the rightists, but at least with them, we know what we're dealing with. Democrats, hearing you're an anarchist, put their shoulders around you all chummy-chum-chum while reaching for your wallet and then a stiletto for your back. "Conservatives" of pretty much every flavor openly bare their teeth to you, and that helps us get strength in numbers when we fight back.
Yeah, I personally think that both parties' ideologies are completely inconsistent and een blatently contradictory at times; on any subject, each party tends to simply choose the opposite of whatever stance the other party has, so to pick a fight and thus gain popular support. In the end you have two really inconsistent combinations of ideas and each party seems to be united only over their hatred of the other party and nothing more. :p
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
I believe not.
Hmm, It still seems to be Available online ( http://www.themilitant.com ) although you might have trouble getting your newsagent to stock it in printed form.
Yeah, I personally think that both parties' ideologies are completely inconsistent and een blatently contradictory at times; on any subject, each party tends to simply choose the opposite of whatever stance the other party has, so to pick a fight and thus gain popular support. In the end you have two really inconsistent combinations of ideas and each party seems to be united only over their hatred of the other party and nothing more.
Yes I agree totally. Look at what's happened in Britain. The so called "Labour" Party has given us the most repulsive right wing government we've ever had just to conform to public opinion during a long reign of conservatism.
-
Out here? No ****.
Gotta love cow country...
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Out here? No ****.
Gotta love cow country...
There's no **** in cow country? Are you sure about that, Stryke? :wtf: