«

[Stroggy]

Originally posted by FreeFreddy@Jan 19 2005, 12:35 PM

And "innocent" people always die, that's life, pal.

No, pal, thats death.
But you are right, people always die, might aswell revel in the glory of the terrorist attacks in that case.

But if that is really your point of view that its not terrible that innocent people die you have NO right whatsoever to critisize the war.
The only reason war is bad is because innocent people get hurt, but thats life, eh pal?

Originally posted by Stroggy@Jan 19 2005, 02:02 PM
But if that is really your point of view that its not terrible that innocent people die you have NO right whatsoever to critisize the war.
The only reason war is bad is because innocent people get hurt, but thats life, eh pal?

I didn't mean that it's ok that "innocent" people die. It's sad that people have to die in our "civilized" world at all. But it's not something that can be prevented, right?

I think I mentioned it visible enough... :whistle:

[Stroggy]

yes, you seemingly contradict yourself but I can't help but feel your apologetic stance towards innocent deaths is a bit halfhearted.

[Nick]

I don't approve terroristic acts too. If you want do die with honor, you mustn't kill yourself and take away life of innocent people. War means war actions, actions against enemy soldiers, not those damn cowardly attacks on innocents.

[Stroggy]

Indeed,
I have nothing aainst the insurgent attacks against US troops.

[mouse31e]

I take the point about the terrorists being brave enough to stand up to the US because someone needs too and most politicians are generally too cowardly.

However, I would in no way condone their actions. No situation should ever require the deaths of innocent people, in fact, no situation should ever require the violent deaths of anyone as far as I'm concerned!

[Rogue]

We just ‘spread the freedom’ (Bush’s TM) LOL

I can’t say I liked Sadam and what he did to his people, neither have I liked what USA is doing in Iraq.

As for Iran, USA is just checking out what they doing, even Government is declining that they have done that. I don’t believe they will attack Iran same way they did Iraq, but they might attack some ‘targets’.

I don’t believe USA will ever attack China, as China already has nuclear weapons. More likely they will attack North Korea.

[Borodin]

Apropos of all this, if you want to read something really scary, try the Project for the New American Century. PNAC, as it's called, issued a manifesto in 1998, and most of the signatories are highly placed members of the Bush administration: cabinet secretaries, under-secretaries, and paid advisors. This is the official think-tank of the Neo-Cons. The stuff is written to sound very proper, but its concepts are alarming in their implications. Here's an example by a prominent Neo-Con, administration representative and PNAC founding member, Richard Perle:

"We are going to have to take the war against [the terrorists] often to other people's territory, and all of the norms of international order make it difficult to do that. So the president has to reshape fundamental attitudes toward those norms, or we are going to have our hands tied by an antiquated institution (the traditional international system) that is not capable of defending us."

He assumes definitions of terrorists and terrorism, a single solution for terrorism, and a right to violate the territorial sovreignty of any nation if the Bush administration deems it necessary to its interests. This is virtually identical to the policy of the Roman Empire in its heyday, by the way, the idea that nations must be stopped in advance of causing problems, if they could possibly do so. And there's that sinister, "the president has to reshape fundamental attitudes toward those norms," which seems like a permit to employ any means--any lie, any falsified document--to achieve a given result, since (in the PNAC perspective) the goals justify any means.

[xoopx]

bush = the antichrist

[bohor]

well that sounds like inquisition to me!!