Printable View
As I said, they've had their share of ugly doings, as have most countries, and I'm certainly not applauding those actions.Quote:
Originally posted by Saint of Killers
Oh bullshit. Ask the Irish and Scottish how compassionate and reasonable they were.
More to the point, do you believe that the approach adopted by Ghandi would have worked regardless of who the oppressing country was? I certainly do not.
Almaci, you know very well what would happen if I addressed your point. You'd think something was wrong with me and then you wouldn't love me anymore. I'm not going to risk it.Quote:
Originally posted by Almaci
Nice, totaly ignore another point I made.
More to the point, do you understand why Gandhi took that approach? It was because he took the view that violence will beget violence - there's no escaping that fact. As soon as you commit violence, in whatever name, you have ensured that violence remains in the world.Quote:
Originally posted by Prince Planet
More to the point, do you believe that the approach adopted by Ghandi would have worked regardless of who the oppressing country was? I certainly do not.
It's not like had he been in Iraq he would have said "this Hussein chap seems unreasonable. We should blow him and half the country up. That'll solve everything."
Yes, I do.Quote:
Originally posted by StriderKyo
More to the point, do you understand why Gandhi took that approach?
Feel free to answer my question.
Edit: And you are correct, Strider. Ghandi would not have taken that stance. He would not have had the opportunity, since he would be have been promptly executed, if not worse. You don't doubt that, do you?
Jimmy Carter, I think you misunderstand where I'm coming from.
I am genuinely undecided about this war on Iraq. It doesn't matter really, since we'll be going to war within a day or so, but this is why I'm opposed to the war at this time:
1. Given the cost, both in terms of money and innocent lives, I don't understand why war with Iraq is necessary at this time.
2. As a matter of foreign policy, I think it's a bad idea to go to war with every country who might have even the slightest connection to terrorism.
3. We need the cooperation of the rest of the world to fight terrorism, and I don't think war with Iraq will serve that purpose.
So when I ask you and other conservative TNLers to provide more support for your pro-war arguments, I expect more than just canned rhetoric and petty epithets like calling the Democrats "the Party of the French." Both the French and the Democrats have legitimate reasons for opposing the war in Iraq, and it does little to help your credibility when you just belittle them without thinking.
EDIT: Italics added, above.
Eh? You just said you were undecided and then you said you were opposed.Quote:
Originally posted by sleeveboy
I am genuinely undecided about this war on Iraq. ... but this is why I'm opposed to the war:
Perfectly reasonable.Quote:
1. Given the cost, both in terms of money and innocent lives, I don't understand why war with Iraq is necessary at this time.
2. As a matter of foreign policy, I think it's a bad idea to go to war with every country who might have even the slightest connection to terrorism.
3. We need the cooperation of the rest of the world to fight terrorism, and I don't think war with Iraq will serve that purpose.
That's what I call 'em.Quote:
So when I ask you and other conservative TNLers to provide more support for your pro-war arguments, I expect more than just canned rhetoric and petty epithets like calling the Democrats "the Party of the French."
And as for reasons, I've given you mine. If you want to call them "canned rhetoric", that's your own problem.
I'm sorry, I guess you know me. Oh wait... you don't.Quote:
Both the French and the Democrats have legitimate reasons for opposing the war in Iraq, and it does little to help your credibility when you just belittle them without thinking.
Let me make something clear. I'm not only critical of others but I'm harshly critical of myself. I don't believe in something unless I truly, honestly believe in it after thinking it over. So don't you get all high and mighty on people and accuse them of lack of thought when you're the one who can't even back up such a claim, because you don't even know the person.
EDIT: Ahhh, bait and switch. Stylish.
Hmm...seems the French aren't completely opposed to helping out...(from CNN.com)
What are the chances that Saddam possesses and will indeed use these weapons?Quote:
Hours later, though, the French ambassador to the United States said the French military could assist any U.S.-led coalition, should Iraq use biological and chemical weapons against coalition forces.
"If Saddam Hussein were to use chemical and biological weapons, this would change the situation completely and immediately for the French government," Ambassador Jean-David Levitte told CNN. (Full story)
Why in the hell would we expect France to follow through on that 30 day deadline, given that they (or was it the Germans) had claimed that they would veto war no matter what? In addition, Saddam violated the rules of the most recent resolution, as well as the rules of the resolutions passed back in 1991 - why keep playing along, as the French continue to accomodate violations?Quote:
Originally posted by Almaci
France proposed a 30 day deadline, a deadline I might add that would have received near unanimous backing, the US declined and decided to claim that all diplomatic efforts had failed and he promptly put a 48 houre deadline.
Check it up, claiming that France would veto any second resolution is an outright lie.
Just this stone, how can you marvel at the destructive force of a huge bomb and call it freedom?
The MOAB is basically a tactical nuke without the repercussions - used properly, it'll be so unbelievably destructive and demoralizing that surrender will become more likely each time the bomb is dropped. That bomb will kill Iraqi soldiers, sure, but it will also result in fewer Iraqi and American lives being lost in the long run. In addition, it's going to help us free Iraq.
Those chances are slim to non existent and I think slim just left the room.
Now I think we can all agree on hoping im right, right?