theSoulfulMofo
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2001
- Messages
- 4,490
[No message]
It started
- Thread starter Sledgehammer
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Can we please keep politics out of the forum this time??? Have we all not learned from last time. If you want to discuss, message individuals, or go to Free Your Mind, but let's pls keep Everything You Know Is Wrong a war-free zone.
Thank-You.
Thank-You.
LarryMullen's POPAngel
Blue Crack Distributor
I hate all of this.
I just want to wake up already, but I know now that's an unrealistic notion. I pray that all of us are safe from here on out.
------------------
Feel like trash
you make me feel clean
I'm in the black
can't see or be seen
~April~
(AIM
OPLemonGirl)
*~The Official POP_Whore of Interference~*
I just want to wake up already, but I know now that's an unrealistic notion. I pray that all of us are safe from here on out.
------------------
Feel like trash
you make me feel clean
I'm in the black
can't see or be seen
~April~
(AIM
OPLemonGirl)*~The Official POP_Whore of Interference~*
Achtung Bubba
Refugee
Under the circumstances, I'd say that this is a good day.
We could have sent an immediate volley of useless -- or worse, detrimental -- missles, but we waited. While we waited, we could have faltered, we could have decided against a military strike or shown an unwillingness to do what it takes to win, but we did not flinch. Instead of the extremes of blind rage and weak timidity, we collected our forces, found our targets, and struck with the full force of the U.S. military and the support of the free world.
To those who call for peace on earth, I remind you what true peace is. True, lasting, fulfilling peace is the absense of threat and the presence of justice. At this point, there is no such peace. Refusing to respond with military action will bring us no closer to such a lasting peace, and it will only invite more terrorism. War is now necessary to bring about any peace worth having.
To those who suggest this is "Bullet the Blue Sky" all over again, I would first like to assert that, as terrible as the bombings of El Salvador were so many years ago, the U.S. did feel threatened by the Soviet presence there -- there was the legitimate fear of another Cuban missle crisis. But that's beside the point.
I would like to remind you of the six thousand Americans who died from the "bullets" of four hijacked passenger planes. And I remind you that while bombs drop over military targets in Afghanistan, Bush asserts that we are dropping food and other supplies for the civilians.
"Bullet the Blue Sky", indeed.
To those who wonder what regime we'll impose this time, I remind you that we were fighting the greater enemy of the Soviet Empire, and that while we are not infallible, the U.S. did not earn the Semptember Massacre.
Frankly, I am sickened by and simply sick of the insinuations that we're the bad guys here.
To those who are scared of another terrorist attack, I say there is reason to worry. But look at the last few years, the first bombing of the World Trade Center, the U.S. embassies, the U.S.S. Cole. This was not the first attack, and surely this is not the last planned attack.
When one says that this attack will lead to further terrorist attacks, one implies that if we'd simply leave these people alone, they would leave us alone. That suggestion is naive and dangerous. Rather, now that we have struck back on so many fronts -- military, diplomatic, economic -- we may have disrupted their structure enough to hamper their efforts to strike again. Our response can only help the cause of preventing further attacks.
And to those who support our actions today, I say, God bless you.
"The battle is now joined on many fronts. We will not waiver, we will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail. Peace and freedom will prevail."
Achtung Bubba
We could have sent an immediate volley of useless -- or worse, detrimental -- missles, but we waited. While we waited, we could have faltered, we could have decided against a military strike or shown an unwillingness to do what it takes to win, but we did not flinch. Instead of the extremes of blind rage and weak timidity, we collected our forces, found our targets, and struck with the full force of the U.S. military and the support of the free world.
To those who call for peace on earth, I remind you what true peace is. True, lasting, fulfilling peace is the absense of threat and the presence of justice. At this point, there is no such peace. Refusing to respond with military action will bring us no closer to such a lasting peace, and it will only invite more terrorism. War is now necessary to bring about any peace worth having.
To those who suggest this is "Bullet the Blue Sky" all over again, I would first like to assert that, as terrible as the bombings of El Salvador were so many years ago, the U.S. did feel threatened by the Soviet presence there -- there was the legitimate fear of another Cuban missle crisis. But that's beside the point.
I would like to remind you of the six thousand Americans who died from the "bullets" of four hijacked passenger planes. And I remind you that while bombs drop over military targets in Afghanistan, Bush asserts that we are dropping food and other supplies for the civilians.
"Bullet the Blue Sky", indeed.
To those who wonder what regime we'll impose this time, I remind you that we were fighting the greater enemy of the Soviet Empire, and that while we are not infallible, the U.S. did not earn the Semptember Massacre.
Frankly, I am sickened by and simply sick of the insinuations that we're the bad guys here.
To those who are scared of another terrorist attack, I say there is reason to worry. But look at the last few years, the first bombing of the World Trade Center, the U.S. embassies, the U.S.S. Cole. This was not the first attack, and surely this is not the last planned attack.
When one says that this attack will lead to further terrorist attacks, one implies that if we'd simply leave these people alone, they would leave us alone. That suggestion is naive and dangerous. Rather, now that we have struck back on so many fronts -- military, diplomatic, economic -- we may have disrupted their structure enough to hamper their efforts to strike again. Our response can only help the cause of preventing further attacks.
And to those who support our actions today, I say, God bless you.
"The battle is now joined on many fronts. We will not waiver, we will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail. Peace and freedom will prevail."
Achtung Bubba
Dorian Gray
Refugee
This mentality just doesn't seem right...
------------------
And I felt like a star...
Angela Harlem
Jesus Online
Mike, I dont know where you got the idea I think you should do nothing. America will always be at risk of attacks. Unfortunately this isn't the last terrorist attack your country will ever face. And doing nothing wont make it just go away. Do you not see a big diference between isolated attacks and an actual war? These attacks are individual for now, but wont remain so for long with the attitude being displayed here on the board and in the media. I am not commenting on whether your attitude is right or wrong, its not for anyone to judge. And when I say you, I dont mean you personally. Did you read the transcript of what Laden has said? Whether or not it is current doesnt change the fact that he will not roll over. He hates America's guts and is NOT going to stop just yet. Despite the fact that you think this attack has shaken them. It may very well have done so, but they are not giving up. Not yet anyway.
They hit, you hit back, they will retaliate. And so on, until both sides are left counting their casualties. The point I am trying to make is not that the feelings and reactions of the people are wrong, by no means. Call for vengeance, call for justice, call for his head on a platter, call for war, whatever. But just stop and think about what is going to happen. They will fight back, and you will very possibly lose service men and women, civilians, who knows. Its an awful price to pay, and an awful thought to be contemplating isnt it?
I dont believe your country is at fault. I dont believe you brought this on, I dont believe any opinion gives the right to take the lives of your people. This is all neither here nor there, its also stuff you are quite very painfully aware of.
Achtung Bubba
Refugee
And, as a forum administrator, I'm all for using this "room" for discussing the events of today. The events far overshadow the latest U2 news, and if we administrators and moderators are going to let this forum be open to the mindless drivel, we're sure as hell going to discuss the most important events of our time.
I know it can be overwhelming to some -- even I need a break from the news now and again -- but I would simply suggest ignoring the thread rather than asking the rest of us to discuss it in another forum.
And Zoocifer's comments may have been out of line, particularly if they're a call for vengenance rather than merely a decisive victory of overwhelming force.
That said, I also think that the calls for peace at all costs are at least as dangerous as the calls for blood.
Achtung Bubba
I know it can be overwhelming to some -- even I need a break from the news now and again -- but I would simply suggest ignoring the thread rather than asking the rest of us to discuss it in another forum.
And Zoocifer's comments may have been out of line, particularly if they're a call for vengenance rather than merely a decisive victory of overwhelming force.
That said, I also think that the calls for peace at all costs are at least as dangerous as the calls for blood.
Achtung Bubba
Rono
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
I agree,
Dorian Gray
Refugee
Actung Bubba:
You made some really good points.. well said.
But
Look at history.. this has never worked.
But I guess options are limited at this time. I can't say I know of other solutions.
------------------
And I felt like a star...
[This message has been edited by Dorian Gray (edited 10-07-2001).]
You made some really good points.. well said.
But
Look at history.. this has never worked.
But I guess options are limited at this time. I can't say I know of other solutions.
------------------
And I felt like a star...
[This message has been edited by Dorian Gray (edited 10-07-2001).]
TheU2
Refugee
I firmly believe that the US bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved millions of American lives. Tragic? Yes. Necessary? Yes
CK
------------------
2 GA's for 2 GC's!
Email:U2_Kennedy@yahoo.com
AIM: ckennedy77
Aine
Acrobat
What about Japanese lives,dear ???...
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
Noriega, Pinochet, Saddam, Marcos, the Taliban, several regimes in Central America. It seems that the US will sleep with anyone, no matter what the cost. The civilians who died September 11 did not deserve to die, but the Presidents and the Congresses of the last thirty years need to take some of the blame for setting the wheels in motion. I hope that GW Bush and this Congress have learned from the mistakes of the past: Just because certain groups are willing to fight our enemies for us, that doesn't make them trusted allies.
------------------
...a highway with no one on it, a treasure just to look upon it...
"The skeletal structure of your foot is not normal." -- my podiatrist 8-6-01
TylerDurden
War Child
I think SoulfulMofo has raised some excellent points. We should all take note and think about those for a second. lol
Also, I think bin Laden, while completely fucking crazy, is a very very smart person (planning wise) and I'd say he would have known this would all play out the way it has (or similar) and has probably planned several moves ahead, and planned well (eg would know how/what security/defence around the US would be like after the 1st attacks etc). So I hope the US government/agencies whatever are thinking outside the square, 'cos I bet bin Ladens people have been.
Anyway, reports now are showing that the last attacks seemed to be pretty succesful. Little if any casualties, knocked out airport, bases etc, and now the Northern Alliance are making some impressive moves forward. So I guess round 1 gets a thumbs up for now.
Also, I think bin Laden, while completely fucking crazy, is a very very smart person (planning wise) and I'd say he would have known this would all play out the way it has (or similar) and has probably planned several moves ahead, and planned well (eg would know how/what security/defence around the US would be like after the 1st attacks etc). So I hope the US government/agencies whatever are thinking outside the square, 'cos I bet bin Ladens people have been.
Anyway, reports now are showing that the last attacks seemed to be pretty succesful. Little if any casualties, knocked out airport, bases etc, and now the Northern Alliance are making some impressive moves forward. So I guess round 1 gets a thumbs up for now.
Achtung Bubba
Refugee
True, it's never worked completely, but that has been due to mistakes in the use of war, not the use of war, per se.
The reparations of World War I led directly to the Great Depression and World War II. Letting the Soviet Union take half of Europe didn't help the Cold War. Using disreputable forces in Afghanistan during the Cold War led to what we have now.
But the imperfect use of force has been preferable to not using force at all -- to letting Germany take all of Europe and North Africa, to letting Japan take the Pacific, to letting Soviet Communism spill over the rest of the world.
(And the use of the atom bombs at the close of World War II did save lives on both sides, the lives of the Americans who would have stormed the beaches and the lives of the millions of Japanese men, women, and children who were willing to die for every square inch of the Japanese mainland.)
We may set in motion events that might possibly lead to another war twenty years down the road. This is probably the "war to end all wars", but it is our last, greatest hope -- and I for one am willing to risk another war down the road to keep from losing this war now.
The only way the free world may ever truly end wars would be to give up, and that should never happen.
Achtung Bubba
The reparations of World War I led directly to the Great Depression and World War II. Letting the Soviet Union take half of Europe didn't help the Cold War. Using disreputable forces in Afghanistan during the Cold War led to what we have now.
But the imperfect use of force has been preferable to not using force at all -- to letting Germany take all of Europe and North Africa, to letting Japan take the Pacific, to letting Soviet Communism spill over the rest of the world.
(And the use of the atom bombs at the close of World War II did save lives on both sides, the lives of the Americans who would have stormed the beaches and the lives of the millions of Japanese men, women, and children who were willing to die for every square inch of the Japanese mainland.)
We may set in motion events that might possibly lead to another war twenty years down the road. This is probably the "war to end all wars", but it is our last, greatest hope -- and I for one am willing to risk another war down the road to keep from losing this war now.
The only way the free world may ever truly end wars would be to give up, and that should never happen.
Achtung Bubba
Marko
War Child
Achtung Bubba!
I feel that some of your words were directed at me, so I must clarify myself. I didn't mention the threat of another attack as a argument against the atack, I just wanted to say that it's going to have some anwser by the terorists. And I'm all for the atack on the terorists, only not on the whole Afghanistan. Catch bin laden and all those like him and bring him to justice - that's about it.
And I have to say that I'm surprised with this atack - I expected it much earlier, and this pleases me b/c it shows that US did a big research about it's target, they didn't just send planes to throw bombs anywhere - it's great.
So I'm with you, I'm following the events, go help
And by the way, I think that this thread, and all the threads like it, can be in this forum b/c everyone comes here - it has outgrown it's first purpous. Anyone who wants war free zone should not read theese threads - or they should go to wonderland. This is reality
I feel that some of your words were directed at me, so I must clarify myself. I didn't mention the threat of another attack as a argument against the atack, I just wanted to say that it's going to have some anwser by the terorists. And I'm all for the atack on the terorists, only not on the whole Afghanistan. Catch bin laden and all those like him and bring him to justice - that's about it.
And I have to say that I'm surprised with this atack - I expected it much earlier, and this pleases me b/c it shows that US did a big research about it's target, they didn't just send planes to throw bombs anywhere - it's great.
So I'm with you, I'm following the events, go help
And by the way, I think that this thread, and all the threads like it, can be in this forum b/c everyone comes here - it has outgrown it's first purpous. Anyone who wants war free zone should not read theese threads - or they should go to wonderland. This is reality
Dorian Gray
Refugee
I'm afraid I have to disagree with you there... Tragic yes, necessary? no..
People are still affected by the radioactive after effects of that today...
Innocent people...
Moreover, if you take a look at any ww2 study nowadays, you will see that the bombing was (arguably) unnecessary. It was as much a scare tactic as as a solution.
Actually, I don't want to get too wrapped up in this argument.. I'm just an amateur historian, your opinions are just as valid.
------------------
And I felt like a star...
[This message has been edited by Dorian Gray (edited 10-07-2001).]
Aine
Acrobat
Obviously that was what is now called the"humanitarian bombing".
[This message has been edited by Aine (edited 10-07-2001).]
Achtung Bubba
Refugee
And Martha, we should be careful in our alliances, but -- especially given how effective intelligence will almost require help from the shadows -- we should not be afraid of allying ourselves with questionable forces to wipe out the more evil enemy. Remember, we sided with the Soviets against the Nazis.
And I think you need to really think about what you're saying when you talk about the actions of the U.S. Government.
You're first of all ignoring the American military efforts in Kuwait, Somalia, and Yugoslavia -- all in the defense of Muslims. Like so many others, you're painting a false picture of the U.S. by ignoring our good actions.
Beyond that, you're ignoring the fact that these terrorists hate us regardless of what we do. We screw up, we're "The Great Satan". We try to help, we're "imperialists". And if we do nothing, we're uncaring. We can do nothin to please the people who attacked us.
More than that, by suggesting that the U.S. "set the wheels in motion", you're suggesting that the United States acted of its own free will and the terrorists who attacked us are mere cogs in a machine, that they had no choice but to kill six thousand Americans.
You are in fact blaming us for what happened, and that's bullshit.
Achtung Bubba
And I think you need to really think about what you're saying when you talk about the actions of the U.S. Government.
You're first of all ignoring the American military efforts in Kuwait, Somalia, and Yugoslavia -- all in the defense of Muslims. Like so many others, you're painting a false picture of the U.S. by ignoring our good actions.
Beyond that, you're ignoring the fact that these terrorists hate us regardless of what we do. We screw up, we're "The Great Satan". We try to help, we're "imperialists". And if we do nothing, we're uncaring. We can do nothin to please the people who attacked us.
More than that, by suggesting that the U.S. "set the wheels in motion", you're suggesting that the United States acted of its own free will and the terrorists who attacked us are mere cogs in a machine, that they had no choice but to kill six thousand Americans.
You are in fact blaming us for what happened, and that's bullshit.
Achtung Bubba
~LadyLemon~
I Serve Larry's Stick
"i can see those fighter planes...."
Angela,
You wrote: "But if there's a second attack from the U.S, I'd put money on America being hit again."
The implication there is that if we didn't attack all would be fine and dandy...which of course you know not to be the case. I see that isn't what you meant; it was simply how I read it. Given some of the other statements in this thread and on this board I don't think it was a difficult leap to make.
I agree with most everything you say and my only response would be "What's the point?" What's the point of any of this, I suppose. We all sit here and hash and rehash arguments and statements but it doesn't change anything. We can talk about how terrible it is that the lives of service men will likely be lost, and it is, but that doesn't change the fact that not only will it happen, but on some level it has to happen. That is unfortunate and terrible, but it is. And I pray for all involved; which is to say mankind.
I do believe it is going to be wholly difficult for terrorist groups associated with Bin Laden to pull off a large scale retaliatory attack any time in the near future. We've found many, cut off a significant portion of funds, and have those at large on the run. It's hard to execute an attack when you're running. Of course that doesn't mean it won't happen or, at the very least, be attempted. But I think we really have shaken them a great deal. All I'm saying here is what we've done in the last day (and in the last two weeks) will absolutely not hurt us. It only stands to provide some measure of protection that wouldn't be there had we ignored the threat.
Angela, if it seems as though I am (or was) picking on you, I'm sorry. That's not my intent. I am, however, frustrated by the idea that somehow America is to blame here. Or that we've made matters irrevocably worse by retaliating. (note: I know this wasn't what you were saying. I'm speaking in general terms now.)
Recently there was a planned attack on the EU that was thwarted. I believe something along those lines still to be a threat. I'm not convinced that the next attack from Al Qeada will be on the U.S.; they'd like almost as much to hammer Europe. I'd be interested to see if/how some of voices on here might change in that instance.
You wrote: "But if there's a second attack from the U.S, I'd put money on America being hit again."
The implication there is that if we didn't attack all would be fine and dandy...which of course you know not to be the case. I see that isn't what you meant; it was simply how I read it. Given some of the other statements in this thread and on this board I don't think it was a difficult leap to make.
I agree with most everything you say and my only response would be "What's the point?" What's the point of any of this, I suppose. We all sit here and hash and rehash arguments and statements but it doesn't change anything. We can talk about how terrible it is that the lives of service men will likely be lost, and it is, but that doesn't change the fact that not only will it happen, but on some level it has to happen. That is unfortunate and terrible, but it is. And I pray for all involved; which is to say mankind.
I do believe it is going to be wholly difficult for terrorist groups associated with Bin Laden to pull off a large scale retaliatory attack any time in the near future. We've found many, cut off a significant portion of funds, and have those at large on the run. It's hard to execute an attack when you're running. Of course that doesn't mean it won't happen or, at the very least, be attempted. But I think we really have shaken them a great deal. All I'm saying here is what we've done in the last day (and in the last two weeks) will absolutely not hurt us. It only stands to provide some measure of protection that wouldn't be there had we ignored the threat.
Angela, if it seems as though I am (or was) picking on you, I'm sorry. That's not my intent. I am, however, frustrated by the idea that somehow America is to blame here. Or that we've made matters irrevocably worse by retaliating. (note: I know this wasn't what you were saying. I'm speaking in general terms now.)
Recently there was a planned attack on the EU that was thwarted. I believe something along those lines still to be a threat. I'm not convinced that the next attack from Al Qeada will be on the U.S.; they'd like almost as much to hammer Europe. I'd be interested to see if/how some of voices on here might change in that instance.
Achtung Bubba
Refugee
Marko: my comment was partially directed towards ya, but not harshly. My only point there was that we should not hold back out of fear of further attacks. I honestly believe other attacks are being planned, regardless of our response.
Dorian: Yes, it is arguable whether the two bombings were necessary. But looking at what the U.S. military leaders (including President Truman) knew at the time, it did seem like it was a tough decision to make even then, but there was a HUGE case to be made for the bombing.
And Aine, no it wasn't "humanitarian bombing", but it did accomplish three very good things:
1. It ended the war.
2. It saved lives, certainly American lives, most likely Japanese lives.
3. WE WON.
Ivan, I'm not naive, but you can't point to no reason to go to Somalia (at least) except out of humanintarian reasons.
And my major point is that the terrorists would hate us REGARDLESS of what we do.
Every country does have their dark side, but we did not deserve this attack. And your earlier comparisons to "Bullet the Blue Sky" are moronic.
And I don't have the time or energy to respond to the "big race" comment. Just don't let the front door hit ya on the back side when you go.
Achtung Bubba
Dorian: Yes, it is arguable whether the two bombings were necessary. But looking at what the U.S. military leaders (including President Truman) knew at the time, it did seem like it was a tough decision to make even then, but there was a HUGE case to be made for the bombing.
And Aine, no it wasn't "humanitarian bombing", but it did accomplish three very good things:
1. It ended the war.
2. It saved lives, certainly American lives, most likely Japanese lives.
3. WE WON.
Ivan, I'm not naive, but you can't point to no reason to go to Somalia (at least) except out of humanintarian reasons.
And my major point is that the terrorists would hate us REGARDLESS of what we do.
Every country does have their dark side, but we did not deserve this attack. And your earlier comparisons to "Bullet the Blue Sky" are moronic.
And I don't have the time or energy to respond to the "big race" comment. Just don't let the front door hit ya on the back side when you go.
Achtung Bubba
Aine
Acrobat
Achtung Bubba,
Just out if interest,do you think this word
combination makes sense at all ?
Thanks.
[This message has been edited by Aine (edited 10-07-2001).]
TheU2
Refugee
The Catechism of the Catholic Churchsays:
"Legitimate defense can not only be a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of other. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm."
Put simply, that means:, "What parent amoung you wouldn't be justified in doing whatever it took to protect your children from an unjust aggressor?"
CK
------------------
2 GA's for 2 GC's!
Email:U2_Kennedy@yahoo.com
AIM: ckennedy77
Achtung Bubba
Refugee
Well said, TheU2.
Also...
To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;
A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;
A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.
Ecclesiastes 3:1-8
"A time to kill... a time of war."
Most people translate the Ten Commandments to mean "thou shalt not murder", which would not exclude the terrible but perhaps necessary acts of war and capital punishment.
Beyond that, the Old Testament is full of instances where God commanded the Israelites to war, and in the New Testament, Christ said that "he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." (Luke 22:36)
It is a hard thing to go to war, and it should be hard. But it is not necessarily in conflict with the teachings of the Bible, particularly when it is done out of love -- the love of freedom and your fellow man.
Achtung Bubba
Also...
To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;
A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;
A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.
Ecclesiastes 3:1-8
"A time to kill... a time of war."
Most people translate the Ten Commandments to mean "thou shalt not murder", which would not exclude the terrible but perhaps necessary acts of war and capital punishment.
Beyond that, the Old Testament is full of instances where God commanded the Israelites to war, and in the New Testament, Christ said that "he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." (Luke 22:36)
It is a hard thing to go to war, and it should be hard. But it is not necessarily in conflict with the teachings of the Bible, particularly when it is done out of love -- the love of freedom and your fellow man.
Achtung Bubba
LarryMullen's POPAngel
Blue Crack Distributor
I know I'm not.
Guess I'm in the minority.
Angela Harlem
Jesus Online
Mike, thankyou. I read back over what I said, and yes it did appear that was my view. I should be more careful when attempting these sort of discussions. So my apologies. And also I didnt mean to sound so harsh!
I was actually just watching some CNN and some bloke in a beige suit (Ive seen his face a bit, some military guy?) was talking about the successful hits on the targets. Ie, training camps, weapons bases, basically buildings I spose, and the intelligent way the US is destroying their resources I am really quite pleased about. I guess you've worked out Im not a supporter of war as such, and thats for the obvious reasons. But I know that America has to do something, and I think this is definately a step in the right direction. It appears more as not an attack, but a severe blow to the resources and services they will use on you guys. And especially good as it IS likely to be what may take the lives of more innocent people. So, I guess after all of this, I am not dissatisfied with what's happened. In a tactical kinda way, it achieved more than I peviously thought it may. With no unessecary losses.
I dunno, Im apprehensive about where it will lead still.
But thanks again Mike!
I was actually just watching some CNN and some bloke in a beige suit (Ive seen his face a bit, some military guy?) was talking about the successful hits on the targets. Ie, training camps, weapons bases, basically buildings I spose, and the intelligent way the US is destroying their resources I am really quite pleased about. I guess you've worked out Im not a supporter of war as such, and thats for the obvious reasons. But I know that America has to do something, and I think this is definately a step in the right direction. It appears more as not an attack, but a severe blow to the resources and services they will use on you guys. And especially good as it IS likely to be what may take the lives of more innocent people. So, I guess after all of this, I am not dissatisfied with what's happened. In a tactical kinda way, it achieved more than I peviously thought it may. With no unessecary losses.
I dunno, Im apprehensive about where it will lead still.
But thanks again Mike!
diamondbruno9
Mr. MacPhisto's Tub Scrubber
Now this is one of the smarter things Ive seen the tatooed super-model post.
Lets give her a hand.
And Brooke lets not get our panties in a wad over this.
Thank you-
--Diamond-
------------------
"..it's about breaking barriers, transcending boundries and conquering great divides"-Bono 1987
---------
An open letter to Bono from myself www.arizonaautoweb.com/bono/
[This message has been edited by diamondbruno9 (edited 10-08-2001).]
Online polls are even more skewed. They're even wealthier, whiter, and more conservative! If CNN was smart, they wouldn't have used an online poll to quote that statistic. Every knows they are skewed heavily, as the working class still has inadequate access to the internet. If it were up to the internet to decide the election in 2000, Dubya would have had a 20-point landslide. Remember the Clinton-era quip "digital divide"? It's still quite wide.
Melon
------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time
Horseshit Melon! ANYBODY can go to cnn.com and cast their vote on the title page, I just did! I voted YES and yes is leading by 86% to 14%. Maybe some of you never-never land types would like to go there and screw with the stats just for fun? Either way, you can shut up and stop bitching about it only being old white guys voting. Shit, I don't even know any old white guys who can even work a computer! Your stereotyping stinks!
[This message has been edited by U2Kitten (edited 10-08-2001).]
[This message has been edited by U2Kitten (edited 10-08-2001).]
Similar threads
- Sticky
