no war on syria?
- Started
- Last post
- 98 Responses
- lnu0
The thought of Bush asking for lots and lots of dollars to start a war on iraq just to liberate the people without asking anything in return is insane.
- slinky0
UN = Pansies..
they couldn't hold up their own dick let alone any resolutions they pass.
someone give them some viagra
- lnu0
how so?
- mitsu0
"What I don't believe is that we went over there to 'liberate' them. "
this is entirely possible
"I saw an interview the other day of a US soldier... very redneck kind of guy... he said he signed up for military service a few days after 911 and has "been waiting for his chance to get revenge" and when asked if he thought that Saddam was also responsible for 911 he said "definitely." later in the interview he talked about the rush of getting his first kill, how excited he was."
and i'm hoping you don't think that his sentiments reflect all of our troops.
"this type of primitive barbaric warmonger attitude combined with the average blindly patriotic american lead by a gung ho trigger happy administration and you have a formula for disaster. "
blind patriotism is most definitley a formula for disaster, but this is generally typical for a democracy. we vote for the guy we think will make the right decision and we basically bungee jump our way through the next 4 years so to speak and hope he'll do what's in our interest.
- mitsu0
"tell me about one war that didn't put misery on innocent people?"
this is irrelivent, especially to ask me this when i specifically stated that i don't totally support our initiative.
- Jamesh0
agreed mitsu.
:)
- unknown0
no it's not
it's you who said that they didn't go down there to kill innocent people, like it really matters what their intentions were
- unknown0
" i specifically stated that i don't totally support our initiative. "
oh what? do I smell hypocrisy in here
- vespa0
mitsu I must say I get very confused about where you stand on issues such as this. You usually start out by posting quite conservative, right of centre opinions, and then as an discussion continues (over months, in this case) you progress towards the left.
Doesn't that fence hurt?
Or maybe you are a zen master.
- unknown0
end is near! ha. We all are going to die, cause couple of dumb shit!
- vespa0
sorry if that sounded like a smartass remark like you were complaining of earlier.
I do understand where you are coming from mitsu.
I'm just confused as to whether you temper your opinion according to what everyone else in the thread thinks or whether you simply see all sides of the story and are thus in a permanent state of empathy.
- unknown0
as I mentioned it last to one of my friends. Next is Congo, why?we don't know? We suspect the gorillas down there have "WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!"
We are not sure of that, but we will bomb the shit of the country anyway.
- vespa0
Who is bombing the Congo?
I saw in small print a couple of weeks ago that 1000 villagers were killed there in dawn raids... didn't even make a main story in the papers.
- Bio0
ya know, i am in the market for some weapons of mass destruction.
can someone hook me up or point in the right direction?
the US govt wont let me have any of theirs. said i didnt have enough cash. fuckers.
- vespa0
Drill for oil or run for congress?
- mitsu0
"you simply see all sides of the story and are thus in a permanent state of empathy. "
can i buy you a drink vespa?
- vespa0
double mandarin vodka and tonic please. may as well start the weekend early :)
so what is the story from both sides? (can you tell them in 1 sentence each?)
- mitsu0
"I'm just confused as to whether you temper your opinion according to what everyone else in the thread thinks or whether you simply see all sides of the story and are thus in a permanent state of empathy."
to answer your question.
i admit, i ride the fence on many issues. i'm obsessive about seeing both sides of the story, but driven mad at the constant realization that no side can ever be fully heard or understood.
as a result of this constant state of flux, i enjoy a round of couples debate tennis now and then where i sporadically switch sides when i see a weakening in the other.
i am as open minded as they come, but when someone starts making personal attacks or generalizing (not saying that anyone has done this today), my stance goes neutral and i start calling people on their arguments. fallacies only weaken the credibility of your side, making any argument moot.
my beliefs on war, i'm sure, seem to change with the wind.
it's because i don't see this as an anti-war vs. pro-war like most of you do. i don't think that's logical. there are too many things that both 'sides' agree on (ie the unfortunate loss of innocent lives, etc). what seems to differ, really is just the approach. to work towards a resolution, i belive it's important to two sides to first find common ground. that's where my sore crotch is well warranted!