View Full Version : Please find a way to end the war.
hockeybobby
03-27-2008, 09:22 PM
http://jurgenfauth.com/wp-content/uploads/lennon.jpg
Let's end it on this note.
beauty21queen
03-27-2008, 09:51 PM
http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m102/beauty21queen/shut20the20fuck20up20liberal.jpg
hockeybobby
03-28-2008, 04:07 PM
^^^ Good one ;D
An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind.
Mahatma Gandhi
Lunarobverse
03-28-2008, 04:10 PM
...is it over yet?
No?
...damn.
hockeybobby
03-28-2008, 04:25 PM
The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong.
Hatred can be overcome only by love.
Love is the strongest force the world possesses, and yet it is the humblest imaginable.
A coward is incapable of exhibiting love, It is the prerogative of the brave.
~Mahatma Gandhi
How is anybody protecting America 7000 miles away? If China landed paratroopers in the US tomorrow, the troops in Iraq certainly aren't in any position to do much about it.
It's an odd world when "Defending America" is somehow synonymous with "invade countries half the world away and stay there for 5 years"
hockeybobby
03-28-2008, 06:14 PM
In a gentle way, you can shake the world.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.
My effort should never be to undermine another's faith, but to make him a better follower of his own faith.
I am prepared to die, but there is no cause for which I am prepared to kill.
Whenever you are confronted with an opponent, conquer him with love.
Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.
There is no god higher than the truth.
~Mahatma Gandhi
TheSexKitten
03-28-2008, 08:19 PM
Now, I fucking love Gandhi. He was an amazing guy, but just for giggles does anyone here realize he was a racist?
hockeybobby
03-28-2008, 09:08 PM
Now, I fucking love Gandhi. He was an amazing guy, but just for giggles does anyone here realize he was a racist?
Jeez really? How do you know that?
TheSexKitten
03-28-2008, 09:39 PM
I watched a documentary about his days in South Africa and he had a leettle bit of a bigoted opinion about the natives there. I wish I could quote my source but I forget! D:
hockeybobby
03-28-2008, 10:00 PM
I watched a documentary about his days in South Africa and he had a leettle bit of a bigoted opinion about the natives there. I wish I could quote my source but I forget! D:
He made mistakes when he was a younger man. He was in the military for the South African Government. He probably made a few mistakes later in life too. He was human.
ghandi was indeed a racist against black people
I read those essays he wrote for papers, saying Indians are more like the Brits than the dark Africans. Lulz for sure.
He never recanted any of the racism AFAIK.
hockeybobby
03-28-2008, 10:38 PM
ghandi was indeed a racist against black people
I read those essays he wrote for papers, saying Indians are more like the Brits than the dark Africans. Lulz for sure.
He never recanted any of the racism AFAIK.
I can't refute what you say ShOt except for this, there is evidence he had racist views when he was a younger man in South Africa. There is no evidence of this later. There is only a man leading an exemplary life.
Branding him a racist seems harsh, and unfair.
TheSexKitten
03-29-2008, 07:36 PM
Well, he was racist but he was also one of the greatest human beings to walk the earth. I am in no way devaluing the strength, unity, and freedom that he helped the people of India find (and I don't think that thurr Sh0t is neither). :hug:
Why we talkin about Gandhi? oh yah. Sorry for threadjacking. My fault. :-[
hockeybobby
03-29-2008, 08:36 PM
Not a threadjack. I threw some quotes in, you raised an issue, I googled, I learned something. My admiration of the man and his message hasn't changed. It helps to know he stumbled and fucked up like the rest of us. It's good to know the truth.
I've done and said hurtful things in my life. I'd like to think I can atone, and be forgiven, and be remembered more for my good deeds.
RandomUser
03-29-2008, 10:39 PM
"Only whites have the appropriate “genetic endowments” to keep America from collapsing."
Pat Buchanan
Mull over this Paul:
"Hate is too great a burden to bear. It injures the hater more than it injures the hated."
Coretta Scott King
stolen from gman
jester214
03-29-2008, 10:52 PM
Not a threadjack. I threw some quotes in, you raised an issue, I googled, I learned something. My admiration of the man and his message hasn't changed. It helps to know he stumbled and fucked up like the rest of us. It's good to know the truth.
I've done and said hurtful things in my life. I'd like to think I can atone, and be forgiven, and be remembered more for my good deeds.
He said a lot of bad things, I'm not sure but I was under the impression he kept that attitude... Does it take away from him? Not at all, he was still a great man, look what his actions eventually did for African Americans.
Tauries
03-30-2008, 01:23 AM
To crush your enemies,
to see them driven before you,
and to hear the lamentations of their women.
~Conan The Barbarian....King of the Infidel Defilers
;)
bem401
03-30-2008, 08:40 AM
The only way to suitably end the war is to achieve our objectives and then leave. If we leave prematurely ( i.e.: right now ), we'll be looking at World War III within 5 years. Those that hate us will flood Iraq and start gearing up to attack Israel ( or us )and then we'll be drawn back into that region far worse off than we are right now. The argument that " we never should have been there in the first place " is irrelevant at this point. That train left the station 5 years ago.
Katrine
03-30-2008, 04:33 PM
I crrrrrrrrrrrush you....like Stalin!
-Borat Sagdiyev
TheSexKitten
03-30-2008, 05:32 PM
The argument that " we never should have been there in the first place " is irrelevant at this point. That train left the station 5 years ago.
*sigh* Yep. :(
Eric Stoner
03-31-2008, 07:15 AM
Gandhi was a very admirable person BUT his economic ideas helped keep India mired in poverty for 50 years.
hockeybobby
04-02-2008, 07:47 AM
Gandhi was a very admirable person BUT his economic ideas helped keep India mired in poverty for 50 years.
Well, he was like many great famous historical figures. He had one area that he was outstanding in, and the rest of him was normal...good things, bad things, whatever.
Sort of like Mozart, for instance.
TheSexKitten
04-02-2008, 09:43 AM
We could dig up dirt on anyone anyway I guess. MLK, Gandhi, Mother Theresa even...
I suppose I would feel crappy if I saved the rights to happiness of x number of people and after I died everyone was like, "well yeah but... she was a gossipy stripper who cheated on her taxes (or w/e else)"
Eric Stoner
04-02-2008, 09:59 AM
Well, he was like many great famous historical figures. He had one area that he was outstanding in, and the rest of him was normal...good things, bad things, whatever.
Sort of like Mozart, for instance.
Please don't misunderstand. I think Gandhi was a GREAT man. He led the fight for India's independence. But Nehru implemented a socialist, command economy that retarded India's economic growth and perpetuated poverty for about 50 years.
Milton Friedman visited India and was shown an irrigation project where all the work was being done with picks and shovels. He asked why they didn't use modern earth moving equipment and was told that too many people would lose menial, low paying jobs. Friedman's response; " Then why not use spoons? "
Gandhi promoted that kind of primitive social and economic thinking.
Hello_Kitty27
04-06-2008, 09:21 PM
Okay, Thump.
We are not very well acquainted, so you probably aren't aware of my reputation around here as a warmongering right-wing Zionist. I've been (probably rightly) accused of anti-Arab racism, so we have that in common. Just letting you know before you start calling me a left-wing Muslim-loving peacenik hippie, which seems to be your standard dismissal here. So now that you know where I stand...
You're an idiot. Al Qaeda had no presence in Iraq before the war, but they're pretty well established there now. Saddam Hussein was never a threat to us, but now Iraq is. Not a SINGLE ONE of the 9/11 hijackers was Iraqi; almost all of them were Saudis. Osama bin Laden is very likely to be in Saudi Arabia. We were right to invade Afghanistan after 9/11, and we would be justified (if suicidal) in invading Saudi Arabia, but we had ZERO justification for the war in Iraq. Now we're so deeply mired in this muck that there's no good way out of it.
When uneducated morons like you wave the "Yay America" flag and assume all the brown Muslims are the same people, it makes us all look bad and it does nothing to make us safer. In fact it endangers us and emboldens our enemies. So please, for the love of G-d and country, put the fucking flag down and read something.
Thank you.
I have to say this.... I'm sorry this probably won't add to anything in this thread, and I will openly admit that I have not read anything beyond this post i am quoting of Yekhafah's. Anyways what I have to say is ...
....Yekhefah, i've said it before and I'll say it time and time again....I really admire you, your passion about things and your eloquence. Sometimes I read what you write and I feel like you're a mind-reader for me, only you can say it sooooo much better than I can. :)
I wish I could say something to add to this discussion....but the topic breaks my heart for so many reasons. :-\ Sometimes I am "for", most times I am "against" the whole war in the first place....but it really breaks my heart, the money we are spending, the American soldiers lives who are lost, the THOUSANDS of soldiers who are injured...and all for what? A democracy is not always the best solution and who are we to decide?
The war has really struck a personal chord with me as of late...the love of my life has been involuntarily recalled and it has caused nothing but grief and heartbreak for him and his family. Yes, this is what he signed up for as a Marine and I understand that, but I really feel in many ways we have done more harm than good. I'm rambling, sorry.
Back to my point, Yek, you are amazing.
Eric Stoner
04-07-2008, 09:56 AM
This stupid war is the ONLY reason I just can't vote for McCain. I like and admire him but it's long past time to get out from where we never should have been in the first place.
I'm trying to think of a President who was worse served than Bush has been by his Cabinet. Maybe Nixon. Certainly Kennedy.
Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, Rice, Gonzalez, BREMER !, Tenet etc.etc. From lousy intel, to not enough troops, disbanding the Iraqi Army, Abu Ghraib, "torture" memos to YEARS of constantly shifting strategy it has been the worst fiasco since Vietnam and so many Vietnam era mistakes were repeated in Iraq.
Saddam is dead. There are no WMD's. Let's just declare VICTORY and get out !
Eric Stoner
04-09-2008, 09:32 AM
I've been re-reading Halberstam's "THE BEST AND THE BRIGHTEST" and the similarities and parallels between the Vietnam and Iraq quagmires are staggering.
It's "deja vu all over again ! ". Read the book and just substitute Rumsfeld for MacNamara; Bremer for Nortling; Tenet for Allen Dulles and McCone; Casey for Harkins; Biden for Mike Mansfield / William Fulbright; Cheney for LBJ; Armitage and others for Lodge, Harriman and Clifford and it's almost like reading "FIASCO".
The only difference is JFK was smarter and much more cautious than Bush and he wasn't afraid to admit mistakes and CHANGE policy. McCain would be so much like LBJ and Nixon that it's terrifying.
The military has permitted it's credibility to be destroyed so that even if Petraeus is right; his reports will not get the respect they deserve.
No matter what we do, it won't be pretty. Stay or get out. The only difference is how many of OUR guys are going to get killed no matter who the next Pres is.
Melonie
04-09-2008, 10:30 AM
The only difference is how many of OUR guys are going to get killed no matter who the next Pres is.
I don't mean to be controversial, but your comparison depends on the definition of 'OUR guys'. Are you only talking about GI's stationed in the middle east, or does 'OUR guys' also include potential victims of future terrorist attacks on international American interests or worse yet domestic terrorist attacks ?
Yes it's tragic that nearly 4000 GI's have lost their lives in the middle east since 2002. However, it should also be pointed out that since that time there have been extremely few instances of terrorist related deaths of US citizens i.e. no repeat of the WTC attack, no major attacks on US Embassies / army barracks / US ships. In the six years prior to the 2002 Afghan deployment, more US citizens were killed at the hands of islamic terrorists than have been killed in the following 6 years (although the majority of pre 2002 victims were civilians rather than GI's)
So yes McCain's stated policy is likely to result in the deaths of more GI's stationed in the middle east. But arguably that does not necessarily mean that Obama's or Hilary's stated policies will actually result in fewer US citizens being killed at the hands of terrorists ... although the probability is for far fewer GI casualties as a result of a troop pullout versus far more civilian victims as a result of ensuing future terrorist attacks. Unfortunately there is really no way to find out for sure other than to pull our troops out of the middle east and wait to see which US city will be the victim of the next terrorist attack once the islamic fanatics are no longer pinned down thus free to plan / reorganize.
Yekhefah
04-09-2008, 10:36 AM
Goodness, Hello Kitty, thank you! I'm sorry about your man, that's terrible. And I'm glad you got my point even though Thump didn't.
Eric, what "victory" would we declare exactly? What do you think the end result of a unilateral withdrawal would be? Do you think it would be better for Iraq to become an expansion of Iran but with Afghani lawlessness? Would that serve our interests at this point?
We should never have gone in, but now that we are there I don't see any way we can leave.
Lunarobverse
04-09-2008, 11:31 AM
The only problem with the argument "we need to continue occupying Iraq because otherwise bad things will happen" is, as I see it:
A) The people who say those things, and specifically the people who outline the "bad things" that might happen if the US removes its occupying forces, are the same people who predicted that only good things would happen if we invaded and occupied Iraq in the first place. In other words, the folks making that argument were wrong in the first place and have never been right. So why listen to them? Maybe the people who were right all along, or even just dissented from the prevailing early views, should be given a voice?
B) The "bad things" that people predict might happen if the US removes its occupying forces, have, y'know, already happened. Increased terrorist training/activity? Already happened. Iran gaining a foothold in Iraq? Already happened (look how close the ties are between those in the Iraqi government with Iran). Civil War? Already happened / is happening.
The reason Iraq is a mess and violence is increasing there is because it's being occupied by a foreign force - namely, US troops.
Removing the US troops will remove the primary focus for Iraqi violence. That will, in my opinion, reduce the violence. Most of the Iraqis want US troops to leave.
Melonie
04-09-2008, 11:55 AM
^^^ All I can say is that I hope Portland is at the top of their target list next time rather than a second attack in New York. Of course that won't be the case, since there is nothing of 'strategic' value for islamic terrorists to destroy in Portland. As such, that leaves you free to comment without much personal risk.
Forgive my bluntness. I lost two friends in the first WTC attack ... neither of which were remotely connected with the US military, i.e. neither volunteered to confront terrorists ... and I really don't want to lose any more friends in future attacks. I also have a few friends in Israel, and would prefer not to lose any of them as well.
As to any argument regarding the 'good' things which may or may not have happened in Iraq, that strictly depends on which Iraqi citizen ... and which news organization ... you choose to listen to.
~
Eric Stoner
04-09-2008, 11:57 AM
I don't mean to be controversial, but your comparison depends on the definition of 'OUR guys'. Are you only talking about GI's stationed in the middle east, or does 'OUR guys' also include potential victims of future terrorist attacks on international American interests or worse yet domestic terrorist attacks ?
Yes it's tragic that nearly 4000 GI's have lost their lives in the middle east since 2002. However, it should also be pointed out that since that time there have been extremely few instances of terrorist related deaths of US citizens i.e. no repeat of the WTC attack, no major attacks on US Embassies / army barracks / US ships. In the six years prior to the 2002 Afghan deployment, more US citizens were killed at the hands of islamic terrorists than have been killed in the following 6 years (although the majority of pre 2002 victims were civilians rather than GI's)
So yes McCain's stated policy is likely to result in the deaths of more GI's stationed in the middle east. But arguably that does not necessarily mean that Obama's or Hilary's stated policies will actually result in fewer US citizens being killed at the hands of terrorists ... although the probability is for far fewer GI casualties as a result of a troop pullout versus far more civilian victims as a result of ensuing future terrorist attacks. Unfortunately there is really no way to find out for sure other than to pull our troops out of the middle east and wait to see which US city will be the victim of the next terrorist attack once the islamic fanatics are no longer pinned down thus free to plan / reorganize.
Melonie- you're usually so well read; well informed ; au courant and usually correct but this time I have to respectfully disagree. I don't think our being stuck in Iraq has made us the least bit safer here in the U.S. Wiping out Al Queda in Afghanistan and Pakhistan would be much more effective in that regard.
If anything, our Iraq involvement has made us less safe by promoting Al Queda and other extremist recruitment with such things as Abu Ghraib. (sp ? ) and by diverting men and resources from Afghanistan and Pakhistan.
As awful as he was, Saddam was a powerful counterweight to Iran. We are Westerners in an ARAB country that for centuries was under a Turkish thumb and then decades under the control of the British. Vietnam was under Chinese control for centuries and then under French colonial rule for decades. We're doing what the British did after W.W. I; and they succeeded primarily using overwhelming force and because there were no foreign friends helping the Iraqis. The French had 300,000 troops in Indo-China and LOST. We had 500,000 troops just in Vietnam and we lost. Just as we ignored the politics and HISTORY of the Vietnamese; we ignored the history of Iraq. We tried to build a democracy in Vietnam and failed. We knew Ho would win ANY election so we made sure one wasn't held and instead propped up Diem. We supported a minority sect Sunni at times in his repression of local Shiites - Are you getting the picture ? We ignored POLITICAL and HISTORICAL realities at our peril.
Saddam's WMD's were no threat to us. Iran poses little threat to us. ISRAEL would have been and is the primary target. Saudi Arabia and other local Sunni countries have MUCH more to worry about than we do but are doing little if anything to help control Muslim fundamentalism.
Substitute Muslim Fundamentalism for Worldwide Communism and it's 1965 all over again.
Eric Stoner
04-09-2008, 12:07 PM
Goodness, Hello Kitty, thank you! I'm sorry about your man, that's terrible. And I'm glad you got my point even though Thump didn't.
Eric, what "victory" would we declare exactly? What do you think the end result of a unilateral withdrawal would be? Do you think it would be better for Iraq to become an expansion of Iran but with Afghani lawlessness? Would that serve our interests at this point?
We should never have gone in, but now that we are there I don't see any way we can leave.
Let the Sunnis and Shiites refight the same war they've been fighting for centuries ever since the death of Mohammed. If that's what they want to do. Let the Saudis hire as many Moroccan, Kurd, Turkish and Egyptian mercenaries as they need to fight the Iranians just like they used to back in the good old days of the Caliphate and the Moguls.
It's called HISTORY people and it has a way of repeating itself. First it was the Arabs dominating that part of the world; then the Iranians and then the Turks.
Eric Stoner
04-09-2008, 12:11 PM
^^^ All I can say is that I hope Portland is at the top of their target list next time rather than a second attack in New York. Of course that won't be the case, since there is nothing of 'strategic' value for islamic terrorists to destroy in Portland. As such, that leaves you free to comment without much personal risk.
Forgive my bluntness. I lost two friends in the first WTC attack ... neither of which were remotely connected with the US military, i.e. neither volunteered to confront terrorists ... and I really don't want to lose any more friends in future attacks. I also have a few friends in Israel, and would prefer not to lose any of them as well.
As to any argument regarding the 'good' things which may or may not have happened in Iraq, that strictly depends on which Iraqi citizen ... and which news organization ... you choose to listen to.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article3346386.ece
~
I'm sorry but all this talk about "Awakening" and "clear, hold and build" is , until PROVEN otherwise, too reminiscent of the "Strategic Hamlet" program. Just as in Vietnam; our Military has a bad habit of exagerrating success and minimizing failure.
Lunarobverse
04-09-2008, 02:43 PM
^^^ All I can say is that I hope Portland is at the top of their target list next time rather than a second attack in New York. Of course that won't be the case, since there is nothing of 'strategic' value for islamic terrorists to destroy in Portland. As such, that leaves you free to comment without much personal risk.
Forgive my bluntness. I lost two friends in the first WTC attack ... neither of which were remotely connected with the US military, i.e. neither volunteered to confront terrorists ... and I really don't want to lose any more friends in future attacks. I also have a few friends in Israel, and would prefer not to lose any of them as well.
As to any argument regarding the 'good' things which may or may not have happened in Iraq, that strictly depends on which Iraqi citizen ... and which news organization ... you choose to listen to.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article3346386.ece
~
My sympathies for your loss. I understand very well the emotional impact of the events of 9/11 just as much, I believe, as you do. You know next to nothing about me and even though I live in Portland, I have many friends and family on the East Coast. Why do you assume...?
No, wait. I won't get drawn in. There's no connection between the attacks on US soil on 9/11 with our invasion and continued occupation of Iraq. That's long been shown. Your wishing for an attack on an American city is a diversion. I've no need to respond, and your response is not even remotely connected to what I've said.
My apologies and condolences for the fear in which you live. I hope that you are able to deal with it, and soon. It saddens me to see anyone in such pain.
Yekhefah
04-09-2008, 02:56 PM
The people who say those things, and specifically the people who outline the "bad things" that might happen if the US removes its occupying forces, are the same people who predicted that only good things would happen if we invaded and occupied Iraq in the first place.
Not I. When they were first talking about invading Iraq, I (and several in the media) joined the few in government who pointed out that ending Hussein's regime would leave Iraq open to an Iranian takeover and/or the same kind of lawlessness and terrorist breeding that we have in Afghanistan and the Sudan. We all knew that if we entered Iraq, there would be no clean way out. Now that's happened, and unfortunately we can't undo what we've done. We're stuck there.
Let the Sunnis and Shiites refight the same war they've been fighting for centuries ever since the death of Mohammed. If that's what they want to do.
I'd be fine with that if they'd confine it to each other, but they've expanded their horizons and now they want the world. It ceases to be their own business when the U.S. and Israel are their primary enemies and they have nuclear weapons. Iran has nukes, and I'm not interested in handing Iran another country to play house in.
Susan Wayward
04-09-2008, 03:09 PM
^^^ All I can say is that I hope Portland is at the top of their target list next time rather than a second attack in New York.
Uh, does that mean you wish death upon those of us in the Pacific Northwest? Because I think that's a rather harsh and hateful sentiment to express, even in Member Boards.
jester214
04-09-2008, 04:24 PM
^^^Oh come on, leave her alone, it's a hot topic with her and she was making a point, she didn't mean anything bad about it...
Yekhefah
04-09-2008, 04:36 PM
It WAS still a shitty thing to say though.
jester214
04-09-2008, 05:56 PM
So let's all slam her hard for it, I'm sure that'll teach her.
Thump
04-09-2008, 08:11 PM
......
Thump
04-09-2008, 08:30 PM
Goodness, Hello Kitty, thank you! I'm sorry about your man, that's terrible. And I'm glad you got my point even though Thump didn't.
Eric, what "victory" would we declare exactly? What do you think the end result of a unilateral withdrawal would be? Do you think it would be better for Iraq to become an expansion of Iran but with Afghani lawlessness? Would that serve our interests at this point?
We should never have gone in, but now that we are there I don't see any way we can leave.
Goodness, Hello Kitty, thank you! I'm sorry about your man, that's terrible. And I'm glad you got my point even though Thump didn't.
Eric, what "victory" would we declare exactly? What do you think the end result of a unilateral withdrawal would be? Do you think it would be better for Iraq to become an expansion of Iran but with Afghani lawlessness? Would that serve our interests at this point?
We should never have gone in, but now that we are there I don't see any way we can leave.
Point, what point? All she did was kiss your ass in a couple paragraphs. Is that all it takes. Shit....Yek you are the smartest person I know. The way you form your sentences and express yourself just makes me want to crawl over broken glass and barbwire just to hear you fart over a walky talky.
YOUR AMAZING YEK!!!
You know what's funny is over in the Zionist thread I agree with about 99% of what you have posted. It seems the only difference between you and I is I am openly admitting that I am racist towards Muslims. Maybe racist is to strong a word...maybe you could say I will not give them the benefit of the doubt.
However I may have portrayed my racism I do have and have had Muslim friends. Actually on Friday's I drink beer with a lebanese fella. He has the same vie point as me except towards Jews. It's funny after we bicker and fight about who's killing who we buy each other a beer.
Thump
04-09-2008, 08:34 PM
I very much doubt that Melonie wished a terrorist attack onto anyone foreign or domestic. I think her point was she does not want to be on the shit end of the stick again.
my apologies if I misinterpreted you point
I am very much in line with her point, maybe not the way she made it, as I too have lost friends and family in both the WTC attack and in war.
Lunarobverse
04-09-2008, 09:00 PM
So because someone close to you was killed, that justifies continued death?
And only people who are grieving specific murder victims understand the need to continue murdering more people?
Why do you assume that I haven't lost anyone in the attacks of 9/11/2001? Why does that provide a special exemption for you? Why is your grief and fear so special that it overrides the lives, resources and time of others? How many more deaths until your lost loved ones are brought back?
Please help me, because I find this whole line of argument... fascinating. People were killed, so we have to send more people to die and kill.
Just... Fascinating.
On the other hand, I would prefer not to understand that line of thinking. I've felt enough pain in my life. It was nightmarish. I wish I could rid you of your pain. But I can't. I can only work towards the day when your pain does not control the destinies of myself and the rest of this human race.
Peace be with you, Thump. Because it sure isn't with you now.
Thump
04-09-2008, 09:34 PM
So because someone close to you was killed, that justifies continued death?
And only people who are grieving specific murder victims understand the need to continue murdering more people?
Why do you assume that I haven't lost anyone in the attacks of 9/11/2001? Why does that provide a special exemption for you? Why is your grief and fear so special that it overrides the lives, resources and time of others? How many more deaths until your lost loved ones are brought back?
Please help me, because I find this whole line of argument... fascinating. People were killed, so we have to send more people to die and kill.
Just... Fascinating.
On the other hand, I would prefer not to understand that line of thinking. I've felt enough pain in my life. It was nightmarish. I wish I could rid you of your pain. But I can't. I can only work towards the day when your pain does not control the destinies of myself and the rest of this human race.
Peace be with you, Thump. Because it sure isn't with you now.
Dude, my grief and fear is no more special then yours, and I make no assumptions about the casualties you have suffered. More deaths will not bring anyone of my friends or family back but a swift kick in the ass to those who perpetrated/obeded/aided/funded or made possible such an attack. For me it is personal. Like I said above I do not know if you have lost some one or not (I hope you did not), but for me revenge is necessary (I know your going to tell me Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11).
Maybe you are not a revengeful type of person, but no one kicks me in the balls and watches me leave. There will be hell to pay.
I know the next argument is that We should have went after Afghanistan, and we shouldn't be in Iraq anyways...it's cool man....Flip back a couple pages...I want our men and women home too.
Really it's not hard to understand what my goals are. All I want is piece without having to worry if my water is being contaminated, or my town will be bombed, or whatever their devious minds can come up with next....come on I have to think you have the same goals right? Don't you wish you did not have to take off your shoes when going through an airport? don't you wish you could carry on shampoo on a plane? don't you wish there were no bomb sniffing dogs in the parking lots of airports? don't you wish you could carry a lighter onto the plane so you could have a nice calming smoke when you got off? I DO....And my last wish I wish I didn't have to go to the funerals of my 22 and 25 year old cousins, but I did.
Melonie
04-10-2008, 03:59 AM
I very much doubt that Melonie wished a terrorist attack onto anyone foreign or domestic. I think her point was she does not want to be on the shit end of the stick again.
Yes that was the gist of it. And while I certainly did not intend to wish a terrorist attack on any part of America, I did want to register the point that the future risk of domestic terrorist attacks are NOT evenly distributed throughout the country. While there may of course be exceptions (deference to a resident of Portland who has relatives living in NYC for example), for the most part the vast majority of Americans have no actual exposure to 'personal' risk should another domestic terrorist attack occur. Thus it is easy for them to call for removing whatever deterrent / diversion / interference to future terrorist attacks on American soil which stems from the continued existance of GI's conducting an ongoing shooting war in the middle east.
Also, this is strictly a personal opinion, but it annoys me when people discount the significance of the 9/11 attack victims in relation to middle eastern GI casualties. The 9/11 victims did NOT sign up to put their lives on the line ... the GI's did.
TheSexKitten
04-10-2008, 09:10 AM
Thump, sweetie...
MUSLIM = RELIGION
Arabs = Iraqis etc
Persians = Iranians
kthx
Yekhefah
04-10-2008, 09:50 AM
It seems the only difference between you and I is I am openly admitting that I am racist towards Muslims.
Muslims aren't a race.
Actually on Friday's I drink beer with a lebanese fella. He has the same vie point as me except towards Jews. It's funny after we bicker and fight about who's killing who we buy each other a beer.
Ooh, wow. You're so progressive and open-minded! :worship:
Thump
04-10-2008, 06:59 PM
...........