posted on February 15, 2003 11:30:09 AM new
I'll bet there would be no need for a war If these "Peace Rallys" showed support for Saddam's victims. As is, I'd think Saddam is laughing at his temporary victory.
Amen,
Reverend Colin
posted on February 15, 2003 11:51:27 AM new
Colin - You know he is. He's publically state so himself. "Look...at all those in American who support me." [To that effect]
I just don't understand how all these educated people here can know Saddam's background and support him. They say they don't, but by siding with him, against their own government, they are, imo. They'd rather leave a dictator like Saddam in place and protest against their own governments actions. Maybe they think they have more 'inside' information than our government. Maybe they think because our government won't give them every last detail....they're not going to support the US position until that happens. Other than those who are true diehard pacifists, I sure don't understand it.
posted on February 15, 2003 11:59:03 AM new
Linda,
I too find it hard to understand them.
I think?? Everyone would be against war. If this was supported several years ago, we your never be in the spot we are now. It's not like it just started at the end of last year.
Here's the web address to The PBS program " Gunning for Saddam" It's very informative and not slanted like a lot of the stuff that gets posted here.
Maybe some can read and see just who and what Saddam is. What he's done to HIS people already.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/
Amen,
Reverend Colin
posted on February 15, 2003 12:12:44 PM new
Saddam's military probably can't wait to dust their brutal leader.
Among other atrocities, I have read that many Iraqi soldiers taken as POW's during the Iran-Iraq conflict had their ears cut off on Saddam's orders upon their return to Iraq as punishment for being captured.
This is also currently being done to conscripts who do not report for duty fast enough to satisfy Saddam's whims.
I look at the newscasts of Saddam addressing his generals and I feel very sorry for some of them, not the ones who buy into and participate in his genocidal outrages, but those who can't defy him because of the stranglehold he has over everyone in Iraq.
posted on February 15, 2003 12:20:21 PM new
These protesting a**holes don't care about the innocent victims. They didn't call a protest march when Hussein was gassing people or when the US was attacked. There agenda is to destroy the US, Israel, and capitalism. I saw one of the organizers for the protest on tv. I don't think even a clear thinking pacifist would get involved with these people.
Anyway, these protests have been a huge flop world wide. Just think- in the age of the internet, they can barely scare up 1 million people world wide. Woodstock did that much by word of mouth,
posted on February 15, 2003 12:27:34 PM new
REAMOND,
The bands and Dope were better at Woodstock.
Peace Rally? it was a Media Event. If there was not the proability of picking up some good drugs at the rally There would have been a few dozen people.
Amen,
Reverend Colin
posted on February 17, 2003 04:14:21 PM new
Did anyone notices that none of the liberals added to this thread.
I had a feeling that they wouldn't.
It proves a point to me. They will do nothing if they don't think it will farther their agenda. There wasn't much they could say on the subject because it's true.
It's not a conservative or liberal question or statement.
posted on February 17, 2003 04:45:40 PM new
Colin,
I DO notice that the "liberals" don't add to some of the pertinent threads. Even when you put in the facts they demand, they just blow them off and turn the whole thing around to the Demon Bush that is going to kill the innocent Iraqi civilians.
The WWW is such an anonymous world-wide forum one of the them could be Osama himself and we would never know it.
They call us blind and ignorant to the actions of our government and warn of the coming Police State and how their ilk will/can save us from that. LOL!! I'm with you, I don't think it will get that bad and out of control, but if it does we will have to reverse that situation too.
In the meantime I would rather be "in the foxhole" with you, LindaK, REAMOND, ferncrestmotel, and a few others. Some of the "others"...well I don't know. It's one thing to disagree with this war and Bush's policies, but some seem to actually hate America.
posted on February 17, 2003 06:42:22 PM new
'Need for war'
?????
Yes ; ‘need war’ to keep military production jobs going.
Why weren’t there protests?, comparatively or otherwise.
We didn’t react because the point wasn’t ‘driven’ home.
By ‘we’ I mean the Americans & Australians and others.
Because life was ‘sweet’ and we didn’t care ‘enough’ to react.
And THAT is not a conservative or liberal question or statement.
The world has many finite resources and ‘WE’ don’t want to share them evenly, some have much more and some have much less.
As distributions of wealth shifts through competition of expanding markets; the ‘fat cats’ (that’s us) complain.
So scream and howl for war all you like, because as long as people are starving, our ASSets aren’t safe.
How can we stop starving?
1. Shoot’em
2. Feed’em
3. Trickle on’em (ie, the trickle down effect)
Bones21
If you think of the funding which may go into ‘consolidating’ assets on the WWW,
then I think it be far more reasonable to expect that Bush or Poindexter (by proxy) would be the ones lurking at the end of the cable than “Osama himself” as you sugested.
Now, if dubya had a brother who was in the UN, he could reject all votes from anyone with any
Cuumyanist Fillyeashuns in order to gain a ‘mandate’. (Democracy! ROTGLMAO)
posted on February 18, 2003 08:29:53 AM new
Making fun of my name eh? What a kindergarten ploy. Guess you haven't got a REAL answer or REAL facts do you? Too busy licking the boots of your heroes to actually read and think on our own aren't we?
By the way, that is my REAL name. Come back when you grow up and have something INDEPENDENT to say, not just regurgitations that you have lapped up...
.................................................
Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Firemen, Police. We call them our heroes...but we pay them like chumps
posted on February 18, 2003 08:54:07 AM new
I thought It was a pretty funny question. I'd figured it was your last name and thought you would have a good (humorous) comeback. I was mistaken but not surprised.
As far as the "say something INDEPENDENT," I'm not the one with the "Why don't do go back to licking Bush's boots," comeback.
I've brought a few INDEPENDENT thoughts to the board. I didn't expect everyone to agree with them and thought they would debate if not in agreement.
That's what it's all about, a forum for thought and debate. I guess it can be a soapbox too.
posted on February 18, 2003 11:43:25 AM new
I, too, have gotten tired of trying to be reasonable with these clods. As an Ultra-Conservative who is Pro-American, Pro-America, and Pro-United States Constitution, these Uncivil Anti-Libertarians are content to throw names about because they have no opinion of their own, nor could they conjure up one if they tried. They only stand for the tyranny that they love and feeling sorry for themselves as perpetual victims of society. I couldn't care less about their "facts" that they keep trying to bring up because they wouldn't know what constitutes a fact if they took a college course on it. They rely mostly on urban legends for factual information and Republican political blather for their opinions. >>Pah!<< Who need's 'em?
posted on February 18, 2003 12:56:34 PM new
"these Uncivil Anti-Libertarians are content to throw names about because they have no opinion of their own"
Borilla,
Give us a break here. Here's some of your (name throwing) off the latest posts.
Clods, fools, ignorance, bunch of idiotic pretend carpenters,
Uncivil Anti-Libertarians (I liked this one. Showed a hint of intelligence)
Dummies, Stalinist, lazy-butts,
Then to make things worst you come up with this one.
"Then, Bear, and Linda, NTS, and Colin can wear their Skull & Bones armbands in public on their black uniforms with glee!, "
I could live with it until you answered NearTheSea's post with:
"As in 'Skull & Bones' club at Yale. I didn't think that you were this dense, NTS. Been having a touch of the Flu lately?"
Did the Eli's wear Black or was that the N*zi's?
Your as guilty of this as anyone.
This statement says it all:
"I couldn't care less about their "facts" that they keep trying to bring up because they wouldn't know what constitutes a fact if they took a college course on it."
That's the point Borilla. You don't care for the facts if they don't agree with YOU.
Makes me wonder just where you got your Ed-gee-ka-tion.
My Mom had a name for this. It was..Lets see if I can remember .. Pompous ... pompous something .. I can't remember. I'll have to take a college course.
posted on February 18, 2003 02:38:42 PM new
Colin “austbounty? what's your reply have to do with the thread?”
Isn’t this thread asking why protesters failed to react by marching for Saddam’s Victims.?
Well.. my answer was:-
“because the point wasn’t ‘driven’ home.”
“Because life was ‘sweet’ and we didn’t care ‘enough’ to react. “
The attack on the twin towers achieved exactly what Osama wanted.
That was to bring attention to the plight of the Middle East, by ‘driving the message home’.
So now we march.
REAMOND “they can barely scare up 1 million people world wide.”
So 52 American states averaged under 20,000 each???
The official police estimate in Adelaide S.A. was 100,000 out of a pop. Of 1Mill.
200,000 in Sydney.
CNN, which we get some of in Adelaide, said polls show that Americans are largely opposed to the war. 2-1 against.
So now peace and liberty lovers must suffer along with the oil, weapons, & war lovers.
Good luck, trying to keep the war confined to ‘foreign’ soil.
But in the mean time, keep buying duct tape.
The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, coming to a town near you soon.
posted on February 18, 2003 08:37:43 PM new
No Bones21 it wasn't the "Communist News Network"
It was the Right-wing American 'Cable News Network'
Bones21 "Even when you put in the facts they demand, they just blow them off and turn the whole thing around to the Demon Bush that is going to kill the innocent Iraqi civilians."
Hey Bones; Beware the Demon Communism that is going to kill innocent American civilians;
keep buying duct tape.
posted on February 18, 2003 08:49:33 PM new
I am sorry Austbounty but CNN has NEVER been Right-Wing.
What makes you think that??
---------------------------------------------
The last duct tape I bought was about 6 months ago.........to seal ducts.
[ edited by bones21 on Feb 18, 2003 08:52 PM ]
posted on February 18, 2003 09:10:18 PM new
Colin, its either one of two things that makes Borillar the way he is
he's either typing all this crap, then sitting back and laughing his ass off, watching the sh*t fling, or he really is Al Gore in disguise, and since Al doesn't have anything better to do these days, he writes here
Art Bell Retired! George Noory is on late night coasttocoastam.com
"What would someone watching cable news have seen? On Saturday, news anchors on Fox described the demonstrators in New York as "the usual protesters" or "serial protesters." CNN wasn't quite so dismissive, but on Sunday morning the headline on the network's Web site read "Antiwar rallies delight Iraq," and the accompanying picture showed marchers in Baghdad, not London or New York.
This wasn't at all the way the rest of the world's media reported Saturday's events, but it wasn't out of character. For months both major U.S. cable news networks have acted as if the decision to invade Iraq has already been made, and have in effect seen it as their job to prepare the American public for the coming war.
So it's not surprising that the target audience is a bit blurry about the distinction between the Iraqi regime and Al Qaeda. Surveys show that a majority of Americans think that some or all of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi, while many believe that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11, a claim even the Bush administration has never made. And since many Americans think that the need for a war against Saddam is obvious, they think that Europeans who won't go along are cowards. "
posted on February 18, 2003 09:42:43 PM new
colin "I'll bet there would be no need for a war If these "Peace Rallys" showed support for Saddam's victims."
I'll take a bet too and on shorter odds that;
there would be no need for a war If these "war mongers" (US leaders) hadn't showed support for Saddam in the past.
colin, just like you, bush is not concerned for the people of Iraq or the Middle East.
He gives WOMD when he pleases, and then later claims their existence to be the cause of the 'war'.
I'm sure that now he's wishing that this war will get the USA out of it's economic slump.
Just like you, he wishes to advance USA (not all citizens) and screw the rest.
posted on February 18, 2003 09:54:18 PM newHe wishes to advance the USA.
As all presidents do.
NearTheSea - You brought up [I think] the 1998 Clinton attack on Iraq. Here's what Clinton said at that time. Doesn't sound much different to me that what President Bush is saying/claiming. But, yes....according to SOME here it's different now
Taken from CNN -
CLINTON: Good evening. Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
He's publically state so himself. "Look...at all those in American who support me." [To that effect]
