Anti War Rally - February 15th

Re: I WILL BE THERE TOO!!

I HAVE REALLY GOT TO BE THERE.WE ALL SHOULD.I DON'T LIKE TELLING PEOPLE WHAT TO DO BUT THIS IS IMPORTANT.
 
Re: I WILL BE THERE TOO!!

>>>>> I HAVE REALLY GOT TO BE THERE.WE ALL SHOULD.I DON'T LIKE TELLING PEOPLE
> WHAT TO DO BUT THIS IS IMPORTANT.
 
Re: A question for Smiths R Us

Dear Smiths R Us,

One question: are you President Bush? You seem to share both his political views and his literacy "skills". Just wondering. Oh, and one more thing...could you possibly learn to spell before attempting to engage in political "debate"?
Those of us who can read and write properly would appreciate it enormously.

> If we're lucky,

> Saddam and Al Quieda will unleash a mustard gas bomb right where this
> piece of sh*t ralley takes place.

> Why not hold a "Hey Iraq, do what the UN Weapons inspectors
> say!" Ralley?

> I know, because you are all full of crap!
 
Re: A question for Smiths R Us

> Dear Smiths R Us,

> One question: are you President Bush? You seem to share both his political
> views and his literacy "skills". Just wondering. Oh, and one
> more thing...could you possibly learn to spell before attempting to engage
> in political "debate"?
> Those of us who can read and write properly would appreciate it
> enormously.

Bush's stupidity and this person's writing ability are not the same thing. Of all the things you could possibly say here, all you could come up with on your own were some cheap shots at Smiths R Us' English usage?

I don't agree with his/her/its politics anymore than you do, but I have to admit that when there is such a perfect window of opportunity to remain intelligent and make excellent points about the politics of this, it's sad that you pass it up for such sorry insults. Why not try again, and this time put some thought into it.
 
Re: A question for Smiths R Us

> Dear Smiths R Us,

> One question: are you President Bush? You seem to share both his political
> views and his literacy "skills". Just wondering. Oh, and one
> more thing...could you possibly learn to spell before attempting to engage
> in political "debate"?
> Those of us who can read and write properly would appreciate it
> enormously.

May I reply with a question,

Are you a liberal? Because you definitely seem to subscribe to the same ridiculous argumentative tactics that they do. That's what it all comes down to right, my spelling.

By the way, no, I'm not President Bush, nor am I Tony Blair. Though, I highly respect the both of them.

What really gets me about you tree humping liberals is that you will sit there and defend the a man who gases his own people, yet you claim that the UK/US are evil for going after the guy. Oh, but we're in it for the oil right?

Here's a question. If it was all for the oil, why didn't we take it in 91? We could have come up with plenty of excuses then, but we didn't.

Another question, why are Russia and France so worried about a war with Iraq? Oh, gee uhmmm, it wouldn't happen to be OIL would it? Oh no, just because the French and Nazis...err Germans have oil interests with the Iraqis doesn't mean THEY ARE IN IT FOR THE OIL does it?

Wake up! Sure, every countries got their B.S. problems. But, there is a difference in terms of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons in the hands of democracies like UK, US, and Isreal, as opposed to nations ran by tyrants.

And, please, if you are going to say, "Well, the US used nukes in Vietnam." Are we really going to have to debate this. I think it's reasonable to say that the use of the bomb in this instance was necessary. Such a massive attack would have occurred regardless (if the vietnamese continued to resist). Execpt, instead of using a bunch of resources and putting more American soldiers at risk, the bomb did the same amount of damage with much less resources disposed of.

Oh, but please, continue on with your making fun of my spelling and grammar. It's what you tree huggers are best at, you know, avoid the real issues at hand.
 
That's a nice sentiment, but nothing's going to stop this war.

> Do any visitors to the site have plans to attend the anti war rally on
> 15th February??

Like it or not, war's on. Why waste your time?
 
Re: A question for Smiths R Us

Dude, if you are so conservative and patriotic, then stop liking the Smiths and Morrissey, a self-professed f***** who plays whiny jingly pop music that OBVIOUSLY appeals to Birkenstock-wearing lesbians and vegetarians.

Conservative and a Smiths fan? That doesn't mix!

Ted Nugent, that's your man!
 
Re: A question for Smiths R Us

Most excellent response, the truly intelligent creature seems to have come up with something very well thought out...despite earlier accusations of George W. Bush syndrome. I applaud you! Where are you from, Smiths R Us?
 
Re: A question for Smiths R Us

some of what you said has merit, although your defense of what happened in vietnam is bizarre. talk about a pointless war! (bla bla yes i know a lot of men died or were scarred for life because of the war and i feel bad for them -- but that doesn't mean it wasn't a stupid war).
 
Re: A question for Smiths R Us

>>>> Dude, if you are so conservative and patriotic, then stop liking the
Smiths and Morrissey, a self-professed f***** who plays whiny jingly pop
music that OBVIOUSLY appeals to Birkenstock-wearing lesbians and
vegetarians. > Conservative and a Smiths fan? That doesn't mix!> Ted Nugent, that's your man!
 
Re: A question for Smiths R Us

>>>>> Most excellent response, the truly intelligent creature seems to have come
up with something very well thought out...despite earlier accusations of
George W. Bush syndrome. I applaud you! Where are you from, Smiths R Us?
 
Re: A question for Smiths R Us

>>>>> some of what you said has merit, although your defense of what happened in
> vietnam is bizarre. talk about a pointless war! (bla bla yes i know a lot
> of men died or were scarred for life because of the war and i feel bad for
> them -- but that doesn't mean it wasn't a stupid war).
 
Re: That's a nice sentiment, but nothing's going to stop this war.

>>>> Like it or not, war's on. Why waste your time?
 
Re: A question for Smiths R Us

i disagree on the entire premise of the war. this is oversimplifying things a bit, i admit, but i think the whole united states obsession with containing and then eliminating communism was completely stupid and shortsighted.

what also annoys me is that i went to school with a lot of vietnamese kids and was friends with many of them, but they had this stupid habit of bitching to me that the u.s. government didn't do enough to help them. it's really irritating how some nations expect us to fight their wars for them and then complain that we aren't thorough enough. my friends used to shut right up when i said that i didn't think we should have gone over in the first place.

that being said, i feel bad for the vietnamese people's plight and all that, but as i've said before, there are two sides to every story. both sides were guilty of some pretty f***ed up things -- not just the viet cong.
 
Re: A question for Smiths R Us

hey smiths r us,

just so you know, joe is a friend of mine. i've known for some time. he came to this board just to get some jabs in at me really -- i did not invite him. (he's mad because i've neglected him.) don't mind him. he just likes to rile people up.
 
Re: That's a nice sentiment, but nothing's going to stop this war.

the old hippy thing is admittedly ignorant. i think most intelligent people have moved beyond that and don't blame the servicemen who go to war for war. they're serving their country and i think most people respect that. just because we don't agree with the war doesn't mean we're trying to denigrate the men and women who fight and die. it's just important to ask why they're fighting and dying.
 
What drugs are you on??

> And, please, if you are going to say, "Well, the US used nukes in
> Vietnam." Are we really going to have to debate this. I think it's
> reasonable to say that the use of the bomb in this instance was necessary.
> Such a massive attack would have occurred regardless (if the vietnamese
> continued to resist). Execpt, instead of using a bunch of resources and
> putting more American soldiers at risk, the bomb did the same amount of
> damage with much less resources disposed of.

Why would anyone ask about use of nuclear weapons in Vietnam??? Surely nuclear weapons have not been used (except for testing) since World War II..
You're not getting the conflict in Vietnam mixed up with World War II are you??
 
Another question for Smiths R Us!!!!!!!!

> Here's a question. If it was all for the oil, why didn't we take it in 91?
> We could have come up with plenty of excuses then, but we didn't.

Alright - here's a question for YOU - Why did the US not prevent all this contemporary anguish by supporting the Kurdish rebellion you encouraged post-Desert Storm? THAT was your best chance to resolve this issue for good, and yet Dubya senior faltered at the endgame (allowing Saddam to use the weapons you now so plaintively whinge about. "He has gassed his own people", Dubya whines, neglecting the next obvious sentence which would be "while we watched, and did nothing"). So instead of having the lives of US soldiers put on the line (as this option would have involved putting ground troops into Iraq) the US is now willing to put the lives of countless thousands of Iraqi citizens on the line by lobbing bombs from on high until they've bombed Iraq into submission.

So don't give me this crap about this war being about the interests of Iraqis. It's not about oil, per se, and it's not about international justice - it's about using September 11 as an excuse to pump up the military-industrial machine run by Bush and Cheney's mates and advance America's interests.

> Wake up! Sure, every countries got their B.S. problems. But, there is a
> difference in terms of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons in the
> hands of democracies like UK, US, and Isreal, as opposed to nations ran by
> tyrants.

And how do classify Pakistan?

> Oh, but please, continue on with your making fun of my spelling and
> grammar. It's what you tree huggers are best at, you know, avoid the real
> issues at hand.

Cool. The "Isreal" line was a real doozy!
 
DEATH FOR NO REASON IS MURDER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

> Why not make send packages to your countries troops that might be heading
> out, risking their lives to provide security for your country. Why not
> send them messages of hope and support.

Because there are greater security threats much closer to home, because the whole premise of this war-in-waiting is utterly debased. I "hope" they never need fire a single shot in anger and I "support" them coming home alive, without having shed blood (others' or their own) needlessly.

> Instead, lets pretty much go say, "F*ck you, you are all risking your
> lives for something that we don't want!"

No - it's "We understand you will do your duty, but F*ck those who decided to send you, when you could be providing meaningful security for our country in so many better ways. And when no-one in South-East Asia will stand beside you/us if that support were ever TRULY needed, f*ck those who ensured you/we would stand alone and undefended as a nation".

> Or how about the old hippie saying, "How many babies did you
> kill?"

Innocents die in war, f*ckstick - that's why it is to be avoided at ALL reasonable costs, but no-one should blame soldiers for doing what's asked of them - we should blame the leaders who ask those things of others from the comfort of Parliament.
 
Back
Top Bottom