posted on February 4, 2003 07:08:32 PM new
No, Colin, I didn't write it. And I am quite capable of independent thought & research, thank you.
The fact is that Saddam hadn't messed with anyone outside his own country for years. Hadn't heard so much as a whisper about him, had we? Then, in the twinkling of an eye, Bush announces he is the number one danger we have to face and starts going after Iraq like a pit bull in a dog fight. Of course, I understand why it happened--Osama slipped through our fingers, the "war on terrorisim" threatened to stall, Bush's popularity began to slip down again, and people began once more to look at what was really happening on the domestic front. Bush needs the war drum to keep beating, and when he's done with Iraq he'll immediately focus on another country to go after.
Oh, but he treats his own people poorly, right, and so we need to go after him. But unless we are willing to allow other countries to tell *us* how to run our country, we have no right to tell others how to run theirs. Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on February 4, 2003 10:00:23 PM new
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
=============================================
(For those interested in the Clare Booth Luce Policy Institute, a conservative organization, see the URL below.)
http://www.cblpolicyinstitute.org/
-------------------------------------------
Thanks AustBounty....for the heads-up.
I wasn't trying to sell the book or break any rules. But now, I know better. Thanks.
[ edited by bones21 on Feb 4, 2003 10:54 PM ]
posted on February 4, 2003 10:40:17 PM new
Yep!
The for-wars have it.
Quick send an email to dubya, coz'e'reconz
e'aint made'up is mind yet.
For the Lord spoke to the lot'a'ya
(in your rellevant tongues, subject of course to the relevant tenets beliefs, philosophies and sundry idiologies as may be acceptable to you and yours)
and told'ja
"git'on'up; git'in there, yu need a war.
For only a war can set Gods people free from Sadam"
This is your dogma, the dogma of WAR, and I'm not talking religion here.
What if I was to say to you, CHANGE YOUR WAYS USA AUST & UK: SEXUAL ABUSE of YOUR CHILDREN MUST STOP or a ‘Great Army’ will liberate these children.
What if I was to say to you that these Anglo countrymen of ours have a higher rate of such ATROCITIES, than Europeans immigrants have in these same lands.
Such was the assertion made by a recently retiring Judge, who headed the Family court in South Australia.
I have observed this anomalous behaviour among some of my ‘countrymen’; for example: even in the reluctance they seem to display when a child on the street needs help, (they seem overly concerned about being accused of a child sexual crime; it’s quite a hang-up, it’s like a ‘guilt-trip’, this is a wider social manifestation of the guilt that only a few truly deserve.
How long would it take to stop,… more than 12years?…Unfortunately it seems that the victims are more likely to continue along twisted lines without some ‘healing’.
Now even though what I have just said may infuriate many of you, try and remain clear and logical.
SIMILARLY
These mid-east regions some of you seem so happy to go to war with, have had their Anglo & European ‘brothers’
attempting to overpower/dominate/coheres/etc.etc, way back with the CRUSADES and more recently from the late C19th when the British realised there was a lot of oil there.
Unlike us, these countries have not had a chance to ‘democratise’, now we want to kill them because we don’t understand why they’re on edge.
Can it possibly be that they think we are trying to screw them.
You can’t bring about a democracy and ‘stabilise’ a region over night Just by killing Sadam.
We must acknowledge what we have done to them and permit a social transformation, not sell them biological weapons in 88 and bomb them in 1990. And attempt to influence through war-fare-market-price of oil.
Any socio-economic aid given by us is, trivia compared to what we have shown we are capable of.
And now with the wonderful modern advances made in science it is more and more likely each day to have modern-weapons come into the hands of the man on the streets.
Some of those we now fear are marked ‘return to sender’ or something like that.
The people who are likely to use them, may or may not be acting in what they believe to be a religiously ‘right’ way (although they often seem to be) but I don’t think there is any doubt that they are attacking who they believe to be the ‘Imperialist’ power.
We have made it abundantly clear to them over the last 100years, who we think should be the underdogs.
By the way, the Greek word for Sky is where we got the word URANIUM.
So when the priest next reads out ‘the sky will open’. Wonder if he shouldn’t have said ‘uranium atom will be split open’
We don’t need God to bring down the four horsemen of the apocalypse, we are quite capable ourselves, thank you very much.
So again I say, Onward Judaeo/Christian Soldier, Bring on the Dogs of WAR, but don’t be surprised at all if one bites us.
& Don’t worry about the Muslim kids, show your children some good values.
AMEN
Reverend Aust
(PS. I’m no less or more religious than Reverend Colin,
you’ll have to read his site to understand)
posted on February 5, 2003 12:25:45 PM new
Helen,
It's Sheeple
Main Entry: sheeple
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural sheeple
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Reverends English, from Old English Sheep, akin to Old High German scAf sheep
Date: 20th century
1 : any of various ruminant mammals related to the easily swayed peace-niks but lacking the assimilation of fact; long domesticated especially for its easy gullibility
2 a : a timid defenseless creature b : a timid docile person; especially : one easily influenced or led
posted on February 8, 2003 05:12:33 PM new
Leter to the editor.
'Advertiser' News Paper, South Australia.
Feb. 8 2003.
"QUESTIONABLE MOTIVES"
The US didn't start it. They have never ever backed up, funded,supported, bank rolled or dealt in any way with SAdam Hussein (especially in the supply of chemical weapons- Just ask Rumsfeld)
They had no involvement with Suharto, Pinochet, the Argentine junta, El Salvador, Nicuragua, Colombia, Venezuala and never did illegally bomb the hell out of Cambodia or Laos.
They don't trade with murderous regimes like China, or oppressive states like Saudi Arabia. They have never supported corrupt governments like the shah of Iran, or pre-Castro Cuba.
No wonder the thinking world questions the US motives and that of the West in general."
