Originally posted by chris stephensI dont think you'll see much effect, however it might worsen the anti-war sentiment.
tory bliars chances next year?
thoughts please
The UK isn't the US, blair has to acheive different results, results such as a UN mandate, more allies, etc. So far those results have failed to materialise, had kerry won there might have been some of the results he needed to bolster a labour re-election. With bush there is little or no chance of getting those results.
An increased anti-war sentiment may or may not outweigh the percieved lack of a credible alternative, certainly the opposition party has no such credibility.
MÅ¥HÅRM
Originally posted by chris stephensTony is a man.
tory bliars chances next year?
thoughts please
He is quite capable. If he fails, we will honor him in the same way we did Churchill.
A fallen warrior. Felled by cowards who want a world that can't be.
If he survives. Good on you. We love you for your courage.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyNow please whats courage got to do with electing someone.There are n candidates n buttons to be pushed on the machine.Making a candidate a courage incarnate because he thinks violence is the first resort to solving problems doesnt seem to make sense.And does a person who doesnt agree to your opinion a coward.That doesnt seem to be too open-minded.
Tony is a man.
He is quite capable. If he fails, we will honor him in the same way we did Churchill.
A fallen warrior. Felled by cowards who want a world that can't be.
If he survives. Good on you. We love you for your courage.
1 edit
Originally posted by druidraviCourage is awarded and given by the scale of those who award or deny it.
Now please whats courage got to do with electing someone.There are n candidates n buttons to be pushed on the machine.Making a candidate a courage incarnate because he thinks violence is the first resort to solving problems doesnt seem t ...[text shortened]... e to your opinion a coward.That doesnt seem to be too open-minded.
Courage to me is to give the right to STRUGGLE FOR FREEDOM to fifty millions souls.
What is your definition of courage?
My definition and opinnion only apply to those who have applied it. To the real world. And in some cased died.
I wish I knew what courage was. I have never and probably never will be faced with proving mine.
Sad.
But, i tried. Ain't life a hard, unswerving work? Hard.
2 edits
Originally posted by mateuloseYes.
LOL, you think America and Britain gaining up to attack weak little 3rd world Iraq is courage? ROFLMAO! What's so courageous about fighting in a fighter plane, shooting from a distance, in which the Iraqis have no way to shoot it down? Seems like bullying to me, nothing courageous about it.
All the courage in the world to walk into a street each day knowing that that car coming at you is either a family wanting freedom... or a bomb. Damned right. You gutless coward.
Courage. To go investigate the "snitch" of an Iraqi who just knows that their neighbor is a "terrorist" and not drawing a weapon. Courage to ask questions of both parties. Damned right. More courage than you can or will ever dream of. Courage beyond your ability to even dream.
Courage to travel to the aid of twenty dead and injured children and shoppers. Knowing that there is probably another bomb with your name on it. Damned right. You coward. You are the bomb setter. The coward.
Who are you? Who are you to question real people of courage? A bomber? A coward? Yes. May you rot in hell each time a hero dies and the terrorists succeed.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI agree that democracy is great,and it would be great for all people to have freedom and equality.But if by trying to do that you isolate those fifty million souls whats the point.You are trying to work for the freedom of a section of people but what is the point if by your action they suffer grevious losses and moderate people instead become more extreme.I think people in the region you described were closer to democracy before the war than after it.Now they have become so relegiously-fundementalistic that they listen to only hardcore relegious leaders than liberals in their society.Not that I agree that the war was fought for freedom
Courage is awarded and given by the scale of those who award or deny it.
Courage to me is to give the right to STRUGGLE FOR FREEDOM to fifty millions souls.
What is your definition of courage?
My definition and opinnion only apply to those who have applied it. To the real world. And in some cased died.
I wish I knew what courage was. I have ...[text shortened]... be faced with proving mine.
Sad.
But, i tried. Ain't life a hard, unswerving work? Hard.
I think I would define courage as the willingness to see what the consequences of your action would be both in the long-term and short-term than jump for a easy and a convenient solution no matter how tempting it is.
Originally posted by druidraviGood post.
I agree that democracy is great,and it would be great for all people to have freedom and equality.But if by trying to do that you isolate those fifty million souls whats the point.You are trying to work for the freedom of a section of people but what is the point if by your action they suffer grevious losses and moderate people instead become more extreme ...[text shortened]... term and short-term than jump for a easy and a convenient solution no matter how tempting it is.
I guess I can only reply with the fact that the french hated us for liberating them.
You can take that as you will.
The truth is that 52% DID HATE US. They wanted to be Nazi's.
The other truth is that the rest really did want to be french.
Is there any difference between the occupation and liberation of france from Hitler... from the liberation of Iraq from Saddam? If so. What is that difference?
Originally posted by StarValleyWyBS call out.
I guess I can only reply with the fact that the french hated us for liberating them.
The truth is that 52% DID HATE US. They wanted to be Nazi's.
can you state where you got your info please, especially the 52% wanting to be nazis?
That's the great (actually, the only good) thing about debating with you. The amount of shyte (and before you mod me, that's a quaint irish version of a rude word 😉 ) you spout dominates the rest of the drunken ramblings you call posts, so I know nobody else takes u seriously.
snark
D
1 edit
Originally posted by RagnorakYes. A zogby pole asking if the Us "Liberated" france from the Germans (circa WWII) or if we "interferred" with the dignity of france. Live with it.
BS call out.
can you state where you got your info please, especially the 52% wanting to be nazis?
That's the great (actually, the only good) thing about debating with you. The amount of shyte (and before you mod me, that's a quai ...[text shortened]... call posts, so I know nobody else takes u seriously.
snark
D
1 edit
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI think comparing ww2 and the present makes no sense.Ww2 was a full-blownout war between 2 blos.Here there was no need of a war.Sure I agree Saddam was not the ideal ruler for his country and should have been convicted for his crimes.But remember the US helped him become the chief and the aims of the war were initially not freedom of the people involved.And compare the rubble that is iraq now.Just think about what the Iraqis are going through now.Its not just insecurity of life,job rage,frustation,incompetent anger,grief to name a few.Its a virtual hell over there.Its a classic case of solution being worser than the problem.
Good post.
I guess I can only reply with the fact that the french hated us for liberating them.
You can take that as you will.
The truth is that 52% DID HATE US. They wanted to be Nazi's.
The other truth is that the rest r ...[text shortened]... he liberation of Iraq from Saddam? If so. What is that difference?
I think given enough time regions will slowly go to democracy on their own ,the economics,technology greater education will demand it.Consider that all nations in the beginning were despotisms when the strongest man is the ruler.Then they evolved into monarchies where the king ruled by the sanction of relegious faith.And there was feudalism when the kingdom was controlled by rich vassals,nobles just as governments are controlled by corporations now.All nations went through this phase then they either went into a republic with an ultimate democracy ,or went into communism fimally going into democracies or became facists and converted to democracies.Now compare technology with the form of governments.You had despotism when there was no literature ,form of writing etc.Now when a nation had a well-formed relegion and a mean of writing they converted to monarchy.Now for republics you needed courtplaces and basic forms of justice and an active trade networks.For democracies you needed Universities,banks ,police stations etc.Just that a prerequite is matched does not mean a nation automatically gets its form of government chenge.It also depends on various factors like the culture of the place and how deeply the people are relegious,how rich the nation is,its military activity etc.Nations which are deeply relegious are usually slow to change and also are likely to prefer a sort of government which imposes a lot of rules and dictates terms to them.But usually in the long run economics tends to win out as democracy is the most productive form of government.But if you read history monarchies throughout the world and through all times put dissent against people down with an iron hand and led people to lots of unnecessary wars on personal whims.On the other hand if you have external pressure to change the government in a direct way it would lead to a backlash and people would go further back on democracy than forward.I was referring to the whole middle-east than Iraq only.
The sanctions imposed on Iraq is a historical blunder.You make the nation poorer the less chance of it going forward to a democracy.You push the Iraqi opposition leaders with one hand and put those sanctions which cost millions of Iraqi lifes due to sanctions on the other hand are you going to suceed.When you are dealing with people of a foreign nation goodwill and trust are important .People are not so ignorant and recognise hypocricy when it is there with foreign governments,but do not seem to have the same critical eye to their own government.