POPULARITY
- Started
- Last post
- 73 Responses
- unknown0
I know monkeyshine, wasn't funny at all. It just came up from anger (I have this red hot temper which causes me some problems) ;D Sorry if I offended anyone, ok? :) This truly sucks, the taking of Bagdad is going to be bloody and terrible. I really do hope that Saddam does not use any chemical weapons if he has them as an ultimate act of desperation. If that happens, Pandora's box will open and a new era of terrorism will strike us faster than lightning... Damn politicians and damn armies with their stupid toys... >: And damn fundamentalism, being it muslim, christian or jewish...
- vespa0
I would have thought the premise that bombing a country will help to reduce terrorism is unrealistic.
- monkeyshine0
Damn Fundamentalism. There's a bumper sticker I want.
Be glad you aren't in the Bible Belt. Censorship rages here. The Dixie Chicks are being skewered in the media everyday while redneck Country singers like Clint Black can write totally disgusting songs. i.e., "I rock Iraq". $@#!
- ********0
vespa, not if it's the language of the masses. Populism is not Pragmatism....
- unknown0
Yeah, I feel really sad for turly honest americans... Bible Belt... I deduce for your comment that you live in the south of the USA? ;) Censorship is always the first step to fascism... If I was an american citizen I would be really worried about my country's near future. Kick those bastards out of power before it's too late, peeps!
- unknown0
And no doubt we're gonna get rid of this ridiculous, dangerous man Aznar as well. Spain doesn't deserve such a moron as president...
- vespa0
baaaa.
You see it on both sides. I laugh openly at how pro-war people can swallow everything our dear leaders tell them but at the last anti-war rally I was at I found myself wanting to believe everything I was told. A few things some speakers were saying I didn't agree with, but I found myself having to stop myself from clapping with the crowd when his tone of voice reached the cue for spontaneous applause.
It's easier if you let someone else tell you what to believe. And ultimately we all want an easy life.
- unfittoprint0
Glad to hear that Elektro. In Portugal we're going to do somethin' about Barroso... The angster against his stand regarding Iraq is overwhelming.
- unknown0
Sorry to be so naive, but:
" One does not need buildings, money, power, or status to practice the Art of Peace. Heaven is right where you are standing, and that is the place to train. "
Morihei UeshibaDon´t play "follow the leader", either side, find your own path. You will see it is the same as everyone´s elses and still your own.
- chilaquil0
vespa,
kudos... it takes some balls to admit that. I've found myself suddenly swayed by smooth speech or manipulated news... then I snap out of it. I live out of the U.S. but I'm visiting relatives in the U.S. now, so I find myself watching U.S. news and media. It is soooo different than what you see in other countries. I have to admit, the news are biased everywhere. Sometimes to one side, sometimes to another. It's hard to find balanced objective information that doesn't border propaganda.
I don't necessarily consider myself a pacifist, but I have been against this war from the beggining. However, I have asked myself one question. And even though we may never know the answer, I still wonder about it. If back in '91 (I think it was) the people that opposed Saddam would've been helped by the U.S. as promised (instead of just leaving them hanging out to dry); and if these people: The people of Iraq, were to take out Saddam on their own (with some help) . Would that have maybe derived more civilian casualties than this war? I mean, what would've been worse, a civil war that probably would last years, or what's happening now?
The violence either way, would've been inevitable. Whether it happened 12 years ago, or now. So what would've been less bloody? It probably just comes down to the lesser of two evils.
Any thoughts?
- Bluejam0
Saddam's army was more powerful in '91 yet the coalition against him was far more powerful and wide ranging (in terms of international support).
Chances are '91 would have been more bloody, the use of WMD's more probable and the war escalating beyond the confines of Iraq/Kuwait. One possible outcome, due to the Saudi Involvement (back in '91) could have meant a clamp down on terrorist organisations and maybe the spectre of OBL would have been dealt with there and then.
This of course is all speculation on my part.
- kpl0
baaaaa. urraagh...
- chilaquil0
Bluejam...
So is what's happening now, better? (although, according to your speculation, OBL would've been dealt with and 911 probably avoided).
Hmm... I reckon it may have been better for the U.S. but maybe bloodier for Iraquis (?)
Although, I don't know about the economics of it... It if was to be a long term civil war that the U.S. financed, then it could have gotten rather expensive too. Though I don't know if more expensive than this war.