Blair's Support for War - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-08-2002, 01:35 PM   #16
I serve MacPhisto
 
z edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: the HORROR
Posts: 4,022
Local Time: 05:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Anthony
Oh, and Z_Edge; will you kindly refrain from posting huge photos of warplanes, at least in THIS thread. There was no anti-American sentiment, no anti-American comment that warranted something that only ends in people flaming each other.

Please, don't do it again in this thread.

Ant/
Pinkfloyd has the right to say Tony Blair is a dirty $$$ whore, yet I don't have the right to post warplanes.

Hmmmmm

I never saw any public action when pinkfloyd said "bomb z edge now" No, nothing public.

I work around bombs so I don't appreciate that horrible comment when I work in a major war/terrorist target.

That plane was unarmed and not dropping any ordinance. It is a beacon of peace, and a beautiful aircraft. What the hell is so offensive about that?

Here, this is not a warplane:

__________________

__________________
z edge is offline  
Old 09-08-2002, 01:52 PM   #17
Refugee
 
Anthony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,538
Local Time: 11:02 AM
z_edge;

I apologise for the action (or lack thereof) beforehand concerning pinkfloyd, but I was not there and it was not my call - I can't be there at all times. Other Mods are, though, and if they didn't feel the need to do something then I imagine they had their reasons.

I am trying to keep this thread cool, with cooperation from both sides. I'm sorry, but I do not think I am being biased simply because I didn't punish pinkfloyd for a comment done a while ago. What I do think and know, is that a lot of people find pics of warplanes offensive, and they have made it known to me.

The comment about Tony Blair is one of opinion concerning a political leader, and is, needless to say, different from a picture.

If you disagree with me, we can talk it over. PM me, please. I think thats preferable over hijacking the thread.

Ant.
__________________

__________________
Razors pain you; Rivers are damp;
Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp.
Guns aren't lawful; Nooses give;
Gas smells awful; You might as well live.

Dorothy Parker, 'Resumé'
Anthony is offline  
Old 09-08-2002, 01:54 PM   #18
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 11:02 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by z edge
That plane was unarmed and not dropping any ordinance. It is a beacon of peace
I have no desire to start a fight, but how in the world is a WAR plane a beacon of peace? It's purpose is to drop bombs. The purpose of bombs is to kill people. How in the world is that peaceful?
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 09-08-2002, 02:21 PM   #19
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 04:02 AM
Big Grin

Z,
I think the Mods EXPECT more outta you than crazy Ivan Clayton Jr..ie-pinkfloyd.

Fizzing-

What President was that conducting the poll, on his vacation?..if it were GWBush Im sure he did it as a spoof on Clinton as Clinton did POLLS on EVERYTHING.. You might of missed the joke on that one

I wonder what the 'internal poll numbers' were when Winston Churchill uttered the famous line-
"NEVER
NEVER NEVER GIVE UP"..

Peace
Out
DB9
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 09-08-2002, 02:41 PM   #20
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 11:02 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond

Fizzing-

What President was that conducting the poll, on his vacation?..if it were GWBush Im sure he did it as a spoof on Clinton as Clinton did POLLS on EVERYTHING.. You might of missed the joke on that one
No, I was actually refering to Clinton I might dislike the Republican party but I'm no fan of the Democrats either.

But once again - we're not complaining that Blair has refused to listen to a poll conducted on the issue of attacking Iraq, we're concerned that he's outright ignoring anyone who speaks in opposition to him. He won't even hold a debate in Parliament, for goodness sake.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 09-08-2002, 02:52 PM   #21
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 04:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees


No, I was actually refering to Clinton I might dislike the Republican party but I'm no fan of the Democrats either.

But once again - we're not complaining that Blair has refused to listen to a poll conducted on the issue of attacking Iraq,
Fizzing-
Exactly my pt. GW wouldnt do that

1 issue at a time..I think this shows Tony's leadership w this issue.
I cant speak for the other issues..

DB9
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 09-08-2002, 03:16 PM   #22
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 11:02 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond

1 issue at a time..I think this shows Tony's leadership w this issue.
I cant speak for the other issues..

DB9
But you're saying Blair's showing leadership, and yet all he's actually showing is that he's refusing to listen to his opponents. Besides, our Prime Minister isn't elected in order to be the only person who decides policy - we have a House of Commons who are expected to discuss and vote on policies/legislation.

If Blair really wants to show leadership then he should hold a debate and prove to his opponents that his preferred course of action is the correct one. He should attempt to convince the population of this country that he's right, instead of ignoring the fact that 70+% of them don't agree with him. Refusing to listen to those who disagree with you isn't a sign of a good leader - anyone can do that!
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 09-08-2002, 03:28 PM   #23
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 03:02 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees


I think he'll go down in history as a leader who attempted to destroy the Labour Party, and one who worked hand-in-glove with what Gerald Kaufman MP described as "the most intellectually backward American President of my political life."
This seems to be a growing consensus.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 09-08-2002, 03:42 PM   #24
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 04:02 AM
Some of the MOST intellectual elected officials were the poorest of leaders.

Some of the most brillant leaders didnt have the highest IQs.-
Examples-
FDR
Truman
Reagan
Teddy Roosevelt
GW Bush.

I think its cowardly to knock the current president in office
Perhaps we dont realize how tough the postion it is, being on the outside.
Its more glamouous/romantic to throw stones

DB9
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 09-08-2002, 04:03 PM   #25
I serve MacPhisto
 
z edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: the HORROR
Posts: 4,022
Local Time: 05:02 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees


I have no desire to start a fight, but how in the world is a WAR plane a beacon of peace? It's purpose is to drop bombs. The purpose of bombs is to kill people. How in the world is that peaceful?
Good point Fizzing,

My answer is um- simply that it is a deterrent that we have such an awesome power, albeit it's primary purpose is to destroy.

Thus on a larger scale, it's purpose is to maintain peace through deterrence.

If a nation realizes the power that can be unleashed on them should they strike other nations then maybe they will stay home and not destroy themselves and others.

I think it is important for others to realize that the US hunting season (1993-99) is now officially over. Our nation will not tolerate terrorist attacks like we did for 8 years, and we will not allow known terrorists/dictators/tyrants/murderers to refuse the world recognized conditions they agreed to when we spared them for their atrocities.

Though other nations have WMD, they are not the threat that Iraq is and will be should we allow them to continue to spit in the face of the UN and democracy.

Sometimes, peace is only achieved through war. Imagine if the world had not stopped Hitler.
__________________
z edge is offline  
Old 09-08-2002, 04:18 PM   #26
I serve MacPhisto
 
z edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: the HORROR
Posts: 4,022
Local Time: 05:02 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Anthony
[B]z_edge;

I apologise for the action (or lack thereof) beforehand concerning pinkfloyd, but I was not there and it was not my call - I can't be there at all times. Other Mods are, though, and if they didn't feel the need to do something then I imagine they had their reasons.[QUOTE][B]

Thank you, it is a dead horse brought up only for refrence.

Quote:
I am trying to keep this thread cool, with cooperation from both sides. I'm sorry, but I do not think I am being biased simply because I didn't punish pinkfloyd for a comment done a while ago. What I do think and know, is that a lot of people find pics of warplanes offensive, and they have made it known to me.
I am all for keeping the threads cool.

As far as the planes being offensive, they are only posted when I find something offensive (such as what I brough up for refrence from pinkfloyd, and other comments where I have been called blasphemous and murderous, or cursed at by a diferrent mod)

I know you can't be everywhere, but I do find it disturbing when I am singled out on the forums and the stuff I mentioned above in paranthesis goes overlooked or is handled in private.

Back to the planes, if people find them offensive then I find that offensive that they find my planes offensive. SO you see, it kinda works itself out

I would bet $$$$$$ money that I have had more personal attacks or offensive insults made at me in here than anyone else, so I see no problem "freeing my mind" when everyone else is allowed to as well.

Quote:
The comment about Tony Blair is one of opinion concerning a political leader, and is, needless to say, different from a picture.

If you disagree with me, we can talk it over. PM me, please. I think thats preferable over hijacking the thread.

Ant.
Well I respect your opinion, and I just posted my opinion which is not hijacking your thread?

I think you are doing a fine job though and I appreciate your concern on this issue.

BTW, I don't want war either. It is my opinion that it will happen and we have no other choice.

Rather than everybody (not necessarily you) lining up to take swings at Bush or America or even Blair over this, why aren't we looking at Bill Clinton who allowed Iraq to do whatever they wanted for the last 8 years? That includes kicking out the UN weapons inspectors and funding terrorism whil committing terrorism / genocide on his own people and developing weaponry that my end all of our lives someday.

Again, thanks Anthony and I will try to be a little nicer as long as people stop calling me murderous/blasphemous and wishing I would be killed aloud here in this forum.
__________________
z edge is offline  
Old 09-08-2002, 04:27 PM   #27
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 11:02 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by z edge

My answer is um- simply that it is a deterrent that we have such an awesome power, albeit it's primary purpose is to destroy.

Thus on a larger scale, it's purpose is to maintain peace through deterrence.

If a nation realizes the power that can be unleashed on them should they strike other nations then maybe they will stay home and not destroy themselves and others.


So by this logic then other countries should also be able to have those sort of weapons simply to deter others from attacking them. But isn't this how the nuclear arms race began? Isn't this why we now have many more countries developing nuclear weapons? Because they want them to act as a deterrent against attack? And how on earth is the world safer when more of its countries have such devastating weapons?

What if a country which has been threatened by America were to say it only has weapons in order to stop America from attacking it? Would that be permissible or is only the US which is allowed to have weapons as deterrents? Who decides who can keep weapons to deter other from attacking, and who isn't allowed to have weapons?

Quote:
b]Though other nations have WMD, they are not the threat that Iraq is and will be should we allow them to continue to spit in the face of the UN and democracy.

Sometimes, peace is only achieved through war. Imagine if the world had not stopped Hitler. [/B]
If what concerns America is that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, then why not demand the return of weapons inspectors? Of course a key problem with that is that the last time they were allowed into the country it turned out that they were spies for the United States. But seriously - if America is concerned about Iraq's weapons, then why not call for the return of weapons inspectors, so that they have some solid evidence of Iraq's weapons capability before they launch a horrific military attack on the country?

And I don't think Iraq and Saddam Hussein are in any way comparable to Hitler and Germany in the 1930s.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 09-08-2002, 06:54 PM   #28
Refugee
 
Anthony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,538
Local Time: 11:02 AM
An Officer and a Gentleman

Thank you z_edge.

I will prevent people from aiming such calumny towards you. Courteousy, as you know, goes both ways.

Ant.
__________________
Razors pain you; Rivers are damp;
Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp.
Guns aren't lawful; Nooses give;
Gas smells awful; You might as well live.

Dorothy Parker, 'Resumé'
Anthony is offline  
Old 09-09-2002, 12:14 AM   #29
Banned
 
pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: SILVER LINE
Posts: 901
Local Time: 06:02 AM
i don't trust even me

sorry for this blair comment from me , Z edge

right , i take my words back ,



>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>runs away ......................

i just feel extremely nervous , i see no allies ( real allies , with help not just the usual words ) for usa in Iraq .


and DB9 ! , do you know if Iraq has a nuclear plant, reactor or something , thank u , and please answer , and don't use my old false name okey dokey ???????!!!!!!
__________________
pinkfloyd is offline  
Old 09-09-2002, 03:10 AM   #30
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 940
Local Time: 11:02 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by z edge


If a nation realizes the power that can be unleashed on them should they strike other nations then maybe they will stay home and not destroy themselves and others.


Good point. Now where were we... oh yeah, should the US invade Iraq or not...
__________________

__________________
TylerDurden is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:02 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com