Something about liberals really angers me

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
So are you a progressive or a radical?

A radical.

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by MrFun
Anyway, to what extent do these two lessons that our dear mothers taught us, apply to international politics?

1) Violence never solves anything.

2) Two wrongs do not make a right.

Unfortunately, there are people who can only understand violence. And to show the limit to those people, violence is the only option.

I would change the phrase "violence never solves anything" to "initiating violence never solves anything".

[Ned]

I don't know who those anti-war protester are, they seem to be pro-radical muslim more than being anti-war. They seem to live in some bizzare, schizophenic world that outsiders cannot comprehend.

But, in my observation, the Democrats (who tend to be liberal) are just as much behind the war as Republicans.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by MrFun


Anyway, to what extent do these two lessons that our dear mothers taught us, apply to international politics?

1) Violence never solves anything.

2) Two wrongs do not make a right.

1) Violence solved Hitler.

2) True of course. Since when is fighting to defending yourself a wrong? Sounds like something an oppressor might want their victims to think.

[Ramo]

Something about Republicrats really angers me..

They believe that the best way to go about protecting liberties is to strip 'em away from us, and they never put any thought into the future (namely, what happens after Saddam; does anyone truly believe that Kurds would retain, and Shiites would gain, autonomy after Saddam is gone, when we've done absolutely squat for them thus far?).

[Adagio]

Originally posted by OldWarrior_42
Tyrannical by our standards. And yes, I agree it was tyrannical, but it seems many Afghans preferred the Taliban over the Warlords that have taken over the outer regions of the country.

I just saw something in the news last night, that really made me

First they said something about, because of the weather Afghanistan haven't been able to get much food for the last 4 years (might have been more, or less...don't remember exactly). The next thing they said: Afghans were now mad on USA because they had more food some years ago, than they have now!!! Sure, they had more food, back then as the weather didn't "kill" their food, but it's not (only) the Americans fault. So based on this, it seems like they forget to use the brain, or use everything to make USA look bad...

Now lets also say: I haven't checked if it was true what I've heard in the news...

[Hueij]

They seem to live in some bizzare, schizophenic world that outsiders cannot comprehend.

Strange... I feel the same way about conservatives, Republicans, war mongerers and what have you...

[johncmcleod]

Uh, Mr. Fun, didn't you read that I apologized for using the term liberals? I mean opposers to the war. And how can those American-hating Arabs hate us when we gave them so much foreign aid?

[Hobbes]

I oppose war. It's the easy way out, in my opinion. It takes intelligence to work something out peacefully, and that art has been lost, it seems.

[MichaeltheGreat]

It also takes two parties.

If I tell you, OK, you can have peace, as long as you let me do whatever I want to you or anyone else, is that ok with you?

Or how about if I just tell you to sod off when you tell me you want to engage in an intelligent dialog?

Both parties have to want "peace" and they both have to want it on mutually acceptable terms.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by johncmcleod
Uh, Mr. Fun, didn't you read that I apologized for using the term liberals? I mean opposers to the war. And how can those American-hating Arabs hate us when we gave them so much foreign aid?

And how much foreign aid is that?

Once you dig up some specific numbers, remove military aid to their unpopular secular monarchies and emirates.

[Capt Dizle]

I am greatly concerned at the brevity of the previous post!

[monolith94]

Yeah, that's it, liberals are always the shortminded ones…
Cause goodness knows that when the conservatives were in power in the twenties, they didn't install ANY programs that could be considered short sighted at ALL.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Both parties have to want "peace" and they both have to want it on mutually acceptable terms.

Yes, but IMO, the party that doesn't want peace in this instance is the U.S. I think Bush is determined to go to war no matter what, and I believe it is mostly driven by his twin desires to avenge his father's legacy and by the far-right war hawks in his administration who think war is a great way to distract people from their abysmal domestic agenda and ensure reelection in '04. That's why potential dates of the war keep getting pushed ahead...string the people along, then launch at a point where we will still be involved come election time and the folks can go the polls feeling its their civic duty to not rock the boat at a "time like this!"

I oppose the war because I think it is utterly unneccessary. We have kept Saddam contained, successfully, for a decade now. For all the talk, no evidence has been produced to show he has WoMD or that Iraq in any way helped in the September 11th attacks. For pete's sake, Al Queda is an enemy of Saddam, as they loathe all secular governments.

We have no casus belli, we have no mandate for war, and I do not want to see American soldiers getting killed over this nonsense. I don't want to see Iraqi citizens getting bombed. I don't want to see what the massive expenditure will do to our still-weak economy.

I am not opposed to wars that are necessary, but nothing has convinced me yet that this one is as such.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Yes, but IMO, the party that doesn't want peace in this instance is the U.S. I think Bush is determined to go to war no matter what, and I believe it is mostly driven by his twin desires to avenge his father's legacy and by the far-right war hawks in his administration who think war is a great way to distract people from their abysmal domestic agenda and ensure reelection in '04. That's why potential dates of the war keep getting pushed ahead...string the people along, then launch at a point where we will still be involved come election time and the folks can go the polls feeling its their civic duty to not rock the boat at a "time like this!"

I oppose the war because I think it is utterly unneccessary. We have kept Saddam contained, successfully, for a decade now. For all the talk, no evidence has been produced to show he has WoMD or that Iraq in any way helped in the September 11th attacks. For pete's sake, Al Queda is an enemy of Saddam, as they loathe all secular governments.

We have no casus belli, we have no mandate for war, and I do not want to see American soldiers getting killed over this nonsense. I don't want to see Iraqi citizens getting bombed. I don't want to see what the massive expenditure will do to our still-weak economy.

I am not opposed to wars that are necessary, but nothing has convinced me yet that this one is as such.

Just as a test, how do you feel about the UK declaration of war on Germany in 1939?

IMHO, THAT is one war that should have been avoided at all costs.