My definition of evil
Here we go, this might be the most heinous thing i have ever heard. I mean really. This for me is probably the definition of the evil people. It does make me happy that I am going over to help kill these people.
Dolls
(Edit: Link Fixed)
Dolls
(Edit: Link Fixed)
posted by Maddawg at 11/24/2005 09:27:00 PM
8 Comments:
I'm confused. First you laud battleships as the vessels Jesus would use if he were to bomb some landmass from the water, and then you use the same article to demonstrate just who the "evil people" are. Who's-a-jigga-what?
OH! Ok, now it makes sense.
Still, if my country was being turned into a barren desert wasteland...uh...geez, where am I going with this?...with...BUILDINGS blown up in it...by an occupying foreign force, I might be tempted to do whatever it is I could to stop it, as well. Not sure if I'd give blow-up dolls to kids though. (There's a sex joke in there. You have to work for it a little bit, but it's there. Nah, who're we kidding? You don't have to work for it.)
Oh yes, because its Iraqi's that are making up the majority of insurgent forces....there isn't a rolleyes emoticon in the world big enough for that statement.
Using children in war is the most disgusting, reprehensible thing I can even imagine. Most of the terrorist strategies I can write off as just that - strategy - but this is not good tactics. These are people with no sense of decency using "resources" they have no right to use for a fight that they have no right to be in.
Sara, you had credibility until the last section of your last sentence. That's where you lost your credibility.
"A fight they have no right to be in"? COME ON! Even if the specific guy you're talking about ISN'T an Iraqi freedom fighter, and instead is an Iranian or Syrian or Saudi, think of it in this sense: We live in America, and Iraq takes over Canada. They then send out a warning to the US and Mexico that we could be next if we don't shape up and do what they tell us to do. Then they bring U.N. charges against us (however toothless and unenforceable as they may be), and begin trying to build a coalition against us. You're telling me you wouldn't try to halt the occupation in Canada for your own country's security? Please.
Let's not forget, too, when we throw around the word "terrorism" that there was a period in American history when WE were regarded as terrorists. Remember the Boston Tea Party? Remember the guerilla warfare during the War of Insurrection (what am I, a Brit?)? I just think it's incredibly ignorant to term certain groups of people, whose side we happen to be on, as "freedom fighters" or the like, and those whose side we happen to stand opposed to, even when they (some) fight for the same reasons as "terrorists" and "insurgents."
First off - they are not "freedom fighters." They are fighting for the very opposite of that, and to say otherwise is an insult to everyone who has legitimately given their lives to defend that ideal.
Now, they have a right to try to keep people out of their country - provided they are part of that nations military. You don't have the right to go into some place else and start indiscriminatly blowing shit up.
If you want to keep a force out of your country the correct answer is not to go into another country to blow up their civilians and military. The correct answer is to help your country improve its defenses or - hey heres a thought - stop violating human rights.
If Canada were invaded and they said we were next, we certainly would not go into Canada in dribs and drabs, conceal our presense, and attack civilian targets. We'd go directly to that country and fight or help Canada's military.
Oh whats that? You mean they can't fight with the Iraqi military because *gasp* the Iraqi's actually like not being oppressed and are on America's side?
The insurgents who are fighting against us want control so they can continue to allow regimes built on terror and their agendas to go unchecked. We're over there for a reason, scrappy, and its not for oil. We're finishing a job that should have been done 15 years ago when your so-called "Bush the literate" was calling the shots.
Boy, the Iraqi's sure do have a funny way of showing us they're on our side. I mean, yesterday morning two car bombs killed 7 people. None of them were Americans, thank goodness, but still, that's a funny way of showing us support, don't you think?
Well considering that the Iraqi people are being destroyed by these murderers, i can pretty much say they are not friends of the Iraqi people as a whole. Its a minority of people that are trying to force a civil war so they can regain control of the country through fear and violence to impose there will on the majority. There was a time when fighting oppressors was considered the most noble thing you can do, now according to some people its siding with and supporting those oppressors. Note i am not saying that you do either d-dawg, just saying that this sort of thing used to outrage people everywhere and being there just to kill these people would be considered a good enough reason. I mean was Hitler really a threat to us? And if he wasn't wouldn't the same logic say we shoulda stayed outta WWII?
Hitler WAS a threat to us, but that's not why we entered World War II. We entered WWII because Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor. It's a red herring to say that we fought in WWII for the sole humanitarian purpose of saving the Jews (and others) from the Nazis' genocide.
And let me clarify if I hadn't already: I'm all for the liberation of Iraq, and many many MANY other countries, from dictatorial regimes. I'm all for wars waged for humanitarian reasons.
What I'm against is presenting falsified information, and invoking a national security threat when there is none, in order to induce a war. Whether or not GWII (Gulf War II) turns out well, meaning Iraq gets itself a democracy (albeit a Muslim one) and freedom from tyranny, and even becomes an industrial and stable power (with time) in the Middle East, there will STILL always be doubt as to the pretenses of the war.
Jim, if Bush the Illiterate had gotten up and said, "Hussein's a bad guy, these people are being oppressed, and they need our help," and a majority of people said, "Yeah, let's do it," I would have supported the war. But he got up there and said, "See this blurry thing right here, THAT'S a nukular warhead pointed RIGHT at us, we gotta go get 'em!" And guess what? He was WRONG! The American people were DUPED! And now, after we've figured it out, the administration runs with the defense of "Well look how much better the Iraqi people are doing since we overthrew Saddam." Bullshit. That's not what the war was about.
Post a Comment
<< Home