• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

"A Few Good Men" quote really hits home for me

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Marshallj

Platinum Member
Mar 26, 2003
2,326
0
0
Originally posted by: flavio


So you'll pretty much support any war any time? We should probably be fighting just about all the time and it doesn't even matter with who by your logic.
It's a judgement call. I wouldn't go to war if I didn't think it was worth the risk. You have to leave your options open... there may come a time when you really need something or really want something, and there's no other way to get it.

Take for instance if you were in a country that was barren of natural resources. I have a great example... right now Saudi Arabia and Kuwai are living pretty good due to one thing... oil. For the time being they're in good shape. What are they supposed to do when the oil wells run dry? What will they have then to support themselves? Sand? Desert? A time will come when they will have to fight for survival, and they'll either have to leave their homeland or they'll have to acquire something else.
 

flavio

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,823
0
76
Originally posted by: Marshallj
Originally posted by: flavio


So you'll pretty much support any war any time? We should probably be fighting just about all the time and it doesn't even matter with who by your logic.
It's a judgement call. I wouldn't go to war if I didn't think it was worth the risk. You have to leave your options open... there may come a time when you really need something or really want something, and there's no other way to get it.

Take for instance if you were in a country that was barren of natural resources. I have a great example... right now Saudi Arabia and Kuwai are living pretty good due to one thing... oil. For the time being they're in good shape. What are they supposed to do when the oil wells run dry? What will they have then to support themselves? Sand? Desert? A time will come when they will have to fight for survival, and they'll either have to leave their homeland or they'll have to acquire something else.
So what is you think we need or want from Iraq?

 

Marshallj

Platinum Member
Mar 26, 2003
2,326
0
0
Originally posted by: flavio


Again with that "All wars are good" thing?
Either you're completely missing the points I'm making or you're trying to set up a straw man for your weak arguments.

Please show me where I said ALL wars are good. You've accused me of saying that twice, now I'm calling you out and asking you to show me where I said that ALL wars are good.




 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: DanJ
Originally posted by: etech
DanJ
I'm curious, how long will it take for you to post the exact freedoms you are losing under the Patroit Act?

The clock is ticking.
Search and seizure with a warrant not needed until afterwards ("sneak-and-peak" warrants).
As far as i know, warrents are still required. Please show the section of the patriot act that allows this.

Legal survaliance of anyone without the need for probable cause
Unless you got probable cause, you dont have time or resources to watch everyone. Outside of your home, privacy is not guaranteed.
Secret "Military Tribunals" for people considered to be "terrorists".
Nothing new, this country has done more than a few times in its history

Random arrests because the President and his Administration feel you could be a terrorist.
And where are these happening?

Internet privacy is gone.
internet privacy has never existed
 

flavio

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,823
0
76
Originally posted by: Marshallj
Originally posted by: flavio


Again with that "All wars are good" thing?
Either you're completely missing the points I'm making or you're trying to set up a straw man for your weak arguments.

Please show me where I said ALL wars are good. You've accused me of saying that twice, now I'm calling you out and asking you to show me where I said that ALL wars are good.
I'm sorry, maybe I misunderstood. Are you saying all wars are good if you're a healthy, wealthy, well fed person?

 

yowolabi

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2001
4,183
2
81
Originally posted by: Marshallj
Originally posted by: flavio<br
Are you actually referring to anything in this thread or did you just forget to take your meds?
I'm referring to more than just this thread, I'm referring to an unfortunate trend I see in this country, with people acting illogically. We live in a nice rich country (that we gained by conquering the native people) and you get these wackos who are against the very thing that got them everything they had. I think the only people in America that have room to talk like that are the Native Americans.

It's so easy for people to claim they want peace after they already have what they want and they're living on someone else's land.

At least I'm consistent.... I say that war is unfortunate, but a necessary evil. Sometimes you have to fight for what you want. Freedom and wealth are things that are fought for, not given to you. If these liberals' ancestors were as sensitive as they are, these people wouldn't have the right to talk.
Illogical?

1. You're saying that because someone's ancestors once was a conqueror, that means that they're acting illogically if they don't carry on the tradititon. We should all just perpetuallly carry the mistakes from people who came long before us into the future. You can''t be for peace unless people who lived along ago, you never knew, but have the same nationality as you were also peaceful. It would be wrong to just take responsibility for making your own life the most moral one that it can be.

2. You have no idea of what the ancestors of anyone did. You can't generalize that all white people had ancestors that were conquerors. And what if your ancestors were brought over chained and stacked at the bottom of ships? Can you be against aggression then? If your ancestors arrived after Native Americans had been wiped out, can you be against aggression then? You don't have enough information about anyone here to state that they're against the things they are benefitting from.

3. Consistency for consistency's sake isn't a virtue. It's what you're consistent about. Nobody's giving serial murderers bonus points. When you mention wealth as something worth fighting for, what wealth is being gained, and for who? Why should anyone have to make sacrifices for another's wealth?
 

Marshallj

Platinum Member
Mar 26, 2003
2,326
0
0
Originally posted by: flavio


So what is you think we need or want from Iraq?

I personally don't think the US government is in the business of liberating people all around the world oppressed by a regime. I think there are alterior motives.

In my opinion this war is not about the humanitarian aspect of this regime or WMD, I think it's about having a strong presence in an unstable, natural resource rich region. I believe that the US is against Iraq because it is too strong of a power in the region we're interested in, and it aspires to be an even bigger power in the region. We are dependant on that region for a large percentage of our energy resources, and we're not about to let an enemy of USA have influence over our dependancies.
 

flavio

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,823
0
76
Originally posted by: Marshallj
Originally posted by: flavio


So what is you think we need or want from Iraq?

I personally don't think the US government is in the business of liberating people all around the world oppressed by a regime. I think there are alterior motives.

In my opinion this war is not about the humanitarian aspect of this regime or WMD, I think it's about having a strong presence in an unstable, natural resource rich region. I believe that the US is against Iraq because it is too strong of a power in the region we're interested in, and it aspires to be an even bigger power in the region. We are dependant on that region for a large percentage of our energy resources, and we're not about to let an enemy of USA have influence over our dependancies.
WOW!

 

Marshallj

Platinum Member
Mar 26, 2003
2,326
0
0
Originally posted by: yowolabi
[Q2. You have no idea of what the ancestors of anyone did. You can't generalize that all white people had ancestors that were conquerors. And what if your ancestors were brought over chained and stacked at the bottom of ships? Can you be against aggression then? If your ancestors arrived after Native Americans had been wiped out, can you be against aggression then? You don't have enough information about anyone here to state that they're against the things they are benefitting from.

3. Consistency for consistency's sake isn't a virtue. It's what you're consistent about. Nobody's giving serial murderers bonus points. When you mention wealth as something worth fighting for, what wealth is being gained, and for who? Why should anyone have to make sacrifices for another's wealth?
What I'm saying is that in the USA, all non-native Americans are living the good life as a result of another civilization's demise. Everyone who is here is prospering due to another group of people being wiped out. While these people are living on someone else's land, they're preaching against the very thing that got them what they now have.

 

DanJ

Diamond Member
Oct 15, 1999
3,509
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: DanJ
Search and seizure with a warrant not needed until afterwards ("sneak-and-peak" warrants).
As far as i know, warrents are still required. Please show the section of the patriot act that allows this.
Section 213 of the USA Patriot Act,11 enacted on Oct. 26, 2001, contains the first express statutory authorization for the issuance of sneak and peek search warrants in American history. Section 213 is not restricted to terrorists or terrorism offenses; it may used in connection with any federal crime, including misdemeanors. Section 213 is one of the provisions of the USA Patriot Act excepted from the Act?s sunset provisions.12 To the extent Section 213 may conflict with Rule 41, Section 213 prevails.13

Section 213 amends 18 U. S. C. § 3103a, relating to warrants for the search and seizure of evidence of federal crimes, by adding the following: ?With respect to the issuance of any warrant or court order under this section, or any other rule of law, to search for and seize any property or material that constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States, any notice required, or that may be required, to be given may be delayed if ... (1) the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result (as defined in section 2705); (2) the warrant prohibits the seizure of any tangible property ... except where the court finds reasonable necessity for the seizure; and (3) the warrant provides for the giving of such notice within a reasonable period of its execution, which period may thereafter be extended by the court for good cause shown.?
Just one of the many sources online about it
Legal survaliance of anyone without the need for probable cause
Unless you got probable cause, you dont have time or resources to watch everyone. Outside of your home, privacy is not guaranteed.
No longer is privacy in your home now. That's the point.
Secret "Military Tribunals" for people considered to be "terrorists".
Nothing new, this country has done more than a few times in its history
Yes, this just makes it more shady.
Random arrests because the President and his Administration feel you could be a terrorist.
And where are these happening?
Who knows. It just allows it. That's the point.
Internet privacy is gone.
internet privacy has never existed
Internet service providers must make their services more wiretap friendly, giving law enforcement the ability to capture pen register information or allowing the installation of Carnivore technology.
source

Its a removal of liberties. Plain and simple.
 

yowolabi

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2001
4,183
2
81
Originally posted by: Marshallj
Originally posted by: flavio


So you'll pretty much support any war any time? We should probably be fighting just about all the time and it doesn't even matter with who by your logic.
It's a judgement call. I wouldn't go to war if I didn't think it was worth the risk. You have to leave your options open... there may come a time when you really need something or really want something, and there's no other way to get it.

Take for instance if you were in a country that was barren of natural resources. I have a great example... right now Saudi Arabia and Kuwai are living pretty good due to one thing... oil. For the time being they're in good shape. What are they supposed to do when the oil wells run dry? What will they have then to support themselves? Sand? Desert? A time will come when they will have to fight for survival, and they'll either have to leave their homeland or they'll have to acquire something else.
Why limit this power to nations then, and not to individuals. Under the Marshallj doctrine, if I need something or simply want something, I have the right to take it from someone who has it. If i'm poor and want a T.V, am I entitled to take it from you if I'm able to? I just hope you won't go to the police or speak about any rights you have that I may have violated.
 

flavio

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,823
0
76
Originally posted by: Marshallj
Originally posted by: flavio


WOW!

Do you care to disagree? agree? comment?
I'm incredibly surprised to see someone pro-war actually abandon the "Iraqi-Freedom" marketing campaign and actually confront some possible honest reasons why we are over there. While I may disagree with you as to whether it is right or wrong I still am refreshed by at least the honesty of your perspective.

Stunned actually.

 

Marshallj

Platinum Member
Mar 26, 2003
2,326
0
0
Originally posted by: yowolabi

Why limit this power to nations then, and not to individuals. Under the Marshallj doctrine, if I need something or simply want something, I have the right to take it from someone who has it. If i'm poor and want a T.V, am I entitled to take it from you if I'm able to? I just hope you won't go to the police or speak about any rights you have that I may have violated.

That's where rationale fails. As individuals, we have to live by the laws of the land, set by our government. If we break those rules, we can be punished.

But sovereign countries are not bound by those laws, since no higher justice rules over those countries. If one country decides to invade another, and succeeds, it is now their land.

In the broader scheme of things it doesn't seem right. But that's just the way it is.

Take for example the patriots in the colonies. Do you think Britain treated their actions as people fighting for their freedom? Or do you think they treated them as THEIR property, threatening to punish them for trying to gain independence? Britain considered the patriots terrorists and criminals. They were trying to run off with their land. According to British law (which the colonists lived under), they were commiting a crime. But the patriots won, we became a country, and the patriots were not punished. Instead they were considered heroes.

The point I'm making is that those in power set the laws and write the history books. Their point of view will end up being heard.
 

Marshallj

Platinum Member
Mar 26, 2003
2,326
0
0
Originally posted by: flavio

I'm incredibly surprised to see someone pro-war actually abandon the "Iraqi-Freedom" marketing campaign and actually confront some possible honest reasons why we are over there. While I may disagree with you as to whether it is right or wrong I still am refreshed by at least the honesty of your perspective.

Stunned actually.
Thanks (I guess?).

I agree with the war because I see it as forwarding the position of the country I live in.

I do not believe in wars in terms of absolute right or wrong, I believe there are always conflicting point of views, and the conflicting parties do not always see eye to eye on things.

I think the average American is a bit brainwashed (regardless of the stance they take). They just listen to someone and agree instead of thinking for themselves.

Of course to win public support our government has to market the idea and use basic propaganda. It's always a case of "Good vs. Evil" (with the side you're fighting on always being good of course)

I don't see it in those terms. I just see competition.
 

yowolabi

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2001
4,183
2
81
Originally posted by: Marshallj
Originally posted by: yowolabi

Why limit this power to nations then, and not to individuals. Under the Marshallj doctrine, if I need something or simply want something, I have the right to take it from someone who has it. If i'm poor and want a T.V, am I entitled to take it from you if I'm able to? I just hope you won't go to the police or speak about any rights you have that I may have violated.

That's where rationale fails. As individuals, we have to live by the laws of the land, set by our government. If we break those rules, we can be punished.

But sovereign countries are not bound by those laws. If one country decides to invade another, and succeeds, it is now their land.

In the broader scheme of things it doesn't seem right. But that's just the way it is.

Take for example the patriots in the colonies. Do you think Britain treated their actions as people fighting for their freedom? Or do you think they treated them as THEIR property, threatening to punish them for trying to gain independence? Britain considered the patriots terrorists and criminals. They were trying to run off with their land. According to British law (which the colonists lived under), they were commiting a crime. But the patriots won, we became a country, and the patriots were not punished. Instead they were considered heroes.

The point I'm making is that those in power set the laws and write the history books. Their point of view will end up being heard.
What about international laws and agreements. If we signed on to the United Nations charter, then isn't that a law our nation is bound by similar to individuals being bound by a nation's law.

You're right about victors making the decisions. The only reasons why the colonists weren't punished wasn't because they declared themselves a nation, but because Britain realized that they couldn't punish them.

What I'm confused about is if you believe that might should be right. Do you think that there's no higher moral code that we should abide by then what it is in our power to do.

In a way I agree with some of what you're saying. When survival is an issue, morality isn't much of a consideration. Only after you meet your survival needs do you start thinking about higher moral principles. However, to get back on point, our survival in America isn't based on what we do in Iraq. According to your definition of why we're there, it's only to make our country that is already the richest, marginally richer at the expense of those that have less than us. Why is this ok?
 

Marshallj

Platinum Member
Mar 26, 2003
2,326
0
0
Originally posted by: yowolabi


What I'm confused about is if you believe that might should be right. Do you think that there's no higher moral code that we should abide by then what it is in our power to do?

In a way I agree with some of what you're saying. When survival is an issue, morality isn't much of a consideration. Only after you meet your survival needs do you start thinking about higher moral principles. However, to get back on point, our survival in America isn't based on what we do in Iraq. According to your definition of why we're there, it's only to make our country that is already the richest, marginally richer at the expense of those that have less than us. Why is this ok?
No I don't think that might should be right. Not in an ideal world at least.

Morality is a difficult topic, because many hard decisions would come up. Such as if you had to give up your life to save 2 others' lives, would you? If you knew them you might, but if you didn't that doesn't make them worth less as a human being. What if you didn't like the people? Surely your opinion doesn't change someone's worth, but when you're the one making the decision your opinion is the only one that counts.

I think that everyone is in it for themself nowadays, and they'd rather waste wealth on themselves than give it do someone who needs it. It all goes back to the question of how much are your needs worth compared to someone elses. The one making the decision will get the say. So in the real world, might does make right, but it also makes for brutality and abuse. I think there's no real solution to this problem. If everyone could come to an understanding with one another and explain their needs, we wouldn't have so many problems. But language/race/location turns out to be a barrier for most people, and they'll always treat those who they don't know or understand much worse than they'll treat a friend, relative or countryman.
 

calpha

Golden Member
Mar 7, 2001
1,287
0
0
I agree with the war because I see it as forwarding the position of the country I live in.
An interesting way to put it. I don't know that I agree with the ideas behind the war as far as what we're being told. There's a reason Powell wanted to go the UN route. The only reason I can come up with is to prevent the notion that we , the US, are nation-building. Instead, he wanted, we, the World, are choosing to force Saddam to dissarm. And since he hasn't complied with our efforts, we, the world, are choosing to replace him. But, since the UN was split, we chose to distint paths of logic. Number one, it's a threat to our security, which you have to trust the administration on. Number two, we're enforcing 1441. (probably those should be switched).

If Iraq has WMD (still to be proven), I myself have no doubt that they'd be a threat to our security, and that's the main reason why I'm for replacing Saddam. If Iraq can be proven to have links to Al-Qaeda, then that's another reason. I myself am still not comfortable with the notion of freeing a people of a different land, and putting a democracy in place. I don't think the overall goal of any democracy should be to create republic states wherever totalitarian rule exists. And that's my only philosophical struggle.

I don't deny that the eventuality of a democratic government in the Middle East COULD have calming effects there, but I'm fearful of the cost it's going to require.

I do not believe in wars in terms of absolute right or wrong, I believe there are always conflicting point of views, and the conflicting parties do not always see eye to eye on things.
I don't hate anti war people. I don't hate people that express their opinion. I do disdain public figures (read: celebrites) who attempt to parlay their social status into spouting off their personal beliefs. I've felt that long before this war ever got started. U2 is one of my favorite bands.....and I like them for their music, and their astute patriotism and dedication to their country. I feel the same towards mine. That's how I relate to U2. Plus, their music is great.....even without trying to understand the politics behind it ;) All of our celebs that are mostly on the far-left, while I agree tehy have a right to voice their opinion, I do wish they'd use the same methods I use. Talk to friends, talk to family. Write your politician if you want to. Write your local paper. Don't use your fame as a reason, or an avenue to spout off your beliefs.

But....other then celebrities, I have no problem with listening to a LOGICAL argument of being anti war. And I agree, that what makes this nation great, is the ability of us, it's people to openly dissent from teh government. Even the war-bashers I don't like....the ones that assault the President, or are anything less then completely reverent of our troops, they too have their place. And I can choose to listen or to not. But their right to disagree is every bit as important to defend as my right to agree.

I think the average American is a bit brainwashed (regardless of the stance they take). They just listen to someone and agree instead of thinking for themselves.
change that to the average Un-Informed American, and I can agree.

Of course to win public support our government has to market the idea and use basic propaganda. It's always a case of "Good vs. Evil" (with the side you're fighting on always being good of course)

I don't see it in those terms. I just see competition.
Propaganda/marketing from our government is something that I still struggle with. But it's the very nature of politics. The politicians say why something should be done and list thier reasons. Then it's up to us, the public to dissect those reasons and filter out the BS, which, is probably always there. I'd love for the gov't to release every bit of classified proof it has that Iraq has chemical weapons, or that Iraq has ties to Al-Qaeda. But they won't. I'm registered republican, but I follow logic in my beliefs (or try to). I'm against the Death Penalty (the older I get, the more I'm against it), and I'm for abortion (Sorry, if my sister got raped, she should have tahe right to abort that baby. And if she has the right, I don't want a goverment body telling me who doesn't have teh right.....other then minors without parental consent). But, do I believe Iraq is a threat? I don't believe I'm informed enough to know. Do I trust our goverment's propaganda and marketing? I'm smart enough to attempt to filter through it. Do I believe Saddam would attack us if he could? Do I believe he would work with Al-Qaeda if he could? Yes. That's my root cause for supporting the move to war. I view Saddam as a threat. And since he wasn't willing to comply with a total, complete dissarmamanet......he should be removed.

The only thing taht's important to me as an American is this. My grandfather was a POW in WWII. My father was killed in the military in 1981. Our freedom was bought on the blood of our soldiers. And that's the very reason why I'm proud to be in the US. Not because everyone agrees with me. Or not because my family history has paid a sacrifice. But because there are people willing to die to defend my right to be free. And, I'm not content with paying taxes as my retribution. I'm currently on a regiment program to get into shape (I have a 4 year degree). And IF I can get into shape, and I can get a non-desk job as an officer in the Marines or Air Force, I'm going to join. Not because I want to defend your honor. Not because I want to defend my family history. But because every day that I deal with my mundane problems, there's people fighting for their life, and in the end, dying for my liberty. Regardless of the politicans that put them over there. Our military is fighting in the name of our country, and if I can be one of them, I'd be honored to carry that flag with them.

The one thing I DO think that most people don't realize is that sometimes, there is no alternative to violence. Sometimes, war is a must. We can't stop Al-Qaeda from attacking us by building stronger communities socially. We can't make Saddam dissarm by talk. The logics behind it are difficult for me, as a person. Meaning....the logics behind the reason for war are tough. The politican's standpoint is tough to take. The idea of nation-building is tough to take and digest. I don't feel ambivalence in my support of my government, but I do feel doubt in wondering if there's not alterior motives. But, I support our troops 110%. And that's all that matters to me right now. Anyone that doesn't support our men and women, or doesn't respect them for their sacrifice, I could care less about what you have to say. It's the men and women over there that I care about the most. The decision has already been made to fight, and whether or not you agree, or disagree.....it's all moot at this point. Until the war is over, support of our men and women is all that matters.

Edited for mistakes, and typing.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis
Yes the great military of the United States of America is far above ethics and laws.
That's not the point. The point is that we have all sorts of people second guessing our leaders who are trying to protect us. People who might go and stand in the streets and protest the war, but then they go home and sit in front of the TV with their family. Safe...warm...and protected by men who risk their lives by Iraqi bullets and possible gas attacks. They risk their lives so we don't have to. They should be under the same laws we are, but I think they deserve a little more respect than most of us give them.
 

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,501
1
81
Originally posted by: RadMan
Nearly all men can withstand adversity; If you want to test a man's character, give him power.
- Abraham Lincoln

Violence is the first refuge of the incompetent.
- Issac Asimov

What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?
- Gandhi

The pioneers of a warless world are the youth that refuse military service.
- Albert Einstein

Naturally, the common people don't want war ... but after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.
- Hermann Goering

Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor; for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind.

And when the drums of war reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has 'closed', the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all their rights unto the leader and gladly so.

How do I know? For this is what I have done. AND I AM CAESAR.
- Julius Caesar (actually anonymous, thanks to eTech for the heads up)


These really hit home for me.
I think I will go with the quotes from Lincoln, Einstein, and Gandhi.
 

flavio

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,823
0
76
Originally posted by: Rainsford
People who might go and stand in the streets and protest the war, but then they go home and sit in front of the TV with their family. Safe...warm...and protected by men who risk their lives by Iraqi bullets and possible gas attacks.
The US is not being "protected" by the soldiers. The US wasn't being threatened. We are invading another country.

I respect the soldiers who are fighting though, it's the people tellling them what to do that are the problem.

 

TheNinja

Lifer
Jan 22, 2003
12,207
1
0
Originally posted by: flavio
Originally posted by: Marshallj
Hearing a healthy, wealthy, well fed person speaking out against war just doesn't seem right to me. They already have everything they need, they are already enjoying the fruits of someone else's labor.

I want to hear a sickly, malnourished, impoverished person from a needy country speak out against war. Let's see if they think "the good life" is not worth fighting for.
Again with that "All wars are good" thing?

Our "good life" was not baing threatened by Iraq. In fact we just lost a big tax cut because of it. We would have had more "good life" without it.
So you care about youself and that's it huh? If you have a large amount of money and get a nice tax cut while thousands of human beings die b/c they happened to be born in under a terrible regime that's fine with you. As long as you live the "good life" who cares about humanity right? I hope that the good life is yanked away from people like you and then nobody comes to your aid.
 

flavio

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,823
0
76
Originally posted by: Staley8
Originally posted by: flavio
Originally posted by: Marshallj
Hearing a healthy, wealthy, well fed person speaking out against war just doesn't seem right to me. They already have everything they need, they are already enjoying the fruits of someone else's labor.

I want to hear a sickly, malnourished, impoverished person from a needy country speak out against war. Let's see if they think "the good life" is not worth fighting for.
Again with that "All wars are good" thing?

Our "good life" was not baing threatened by Iraq. In fact we just lost a big tax cut because of it. We would have had more "good life" without it.
So you care about youself and that's it huh? If you have a large amount of money and get a nice tax cut while thousands of human beings die b/c they happened to be born in under a terrible regime that's fine with you. As long as you live the "good life" who cares about humanity right? I hope that the good life is yanked away from people like you and then nobody comes to your aid.
I think that "Operation Iraqi Freedom" is marketing name that you have fallen for. This war is not about "liberating" Iraqis. I believe most Iraqis do not want us "liberating" them. But I suppose you don't really care about what they want do you?

 

TheNinja

Lifer
Jan 22, 2003
12,207
1
0
Originally posted by: flavio
Originally posted by: Staley8
Originally posted by: flavio
Originally posted by: Marshallj
Hearing a healthy, wealthy, well fed person speaking out against war just doesn't seem right to me. They already have everything they need, they are already enjoying the fruits of someone else's labor.

I want to hear a sickly, malnourished, impoverished person from a needy country speak out against war. Let's see if they think "the good life" is not worth fighting for.
Again with that "All wars are good" thing?

Our "good life" was not baing threatened by Iraq. In fact we just lost a big tax cut because of it. We would have had more "good life" without it.
So you care about youself and that's it huh? If you have a large amount of money and get a nice tax cut while thousands of human beings die b/c they happened to be born in under a terrible regime that's fine with you. As long as you live the "good life" who cares about humanity right? I hope that the good life is yanked away from people like you and then nobody comes to your aid.
I think that "Operation Iraqi Freedom" is marketing name that you have fallen for. This war is not about "liberating" Iraqis. I believe most Iraqis do not want us "liberating" them. But I suppose you don't really care about what they want do you?

Flavio you are guessing just the same as I am as to whether or not the Iraqis want us "liberating" them. I belive that they do and you believe that they don't. The only way to prove that would be to talk to them and I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon. My point was that you are complaining about not getting your big tax cut while soldiers and innocent Iraqis are dying. I hope your "good life" is worth it, all I'm asking for is a little respect and thanks for the soldiers.
 

flavio

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,823
0
76
Originally posted by: Staley8
Originally posted by: flavio
Originally posted by: Staley8
Originally posted by: flavio
Originally posted by: Marshallj
Hearing a healthy, wealthy, well fed person speaking out against war just doesn't seem right to me. They already have everything they need, they are already enjoying the fruits of someone else's labor.

I want to hear a sickly, malnourished, impoverished person from a needy country speak out against war. Let's see if they think "the good life" is not worth fighting for.
Again with that "All wars are good" thing?

Our "good life" was not baing threatened by Iraq. In fact we just lost a big tax cut because of it. We would have had more "good life" without it.
So you care about youself and that's it huh? If you have a large amount of money and get a nice tax cut while thousands of human beings die b/c they happened to be born in under a terrible regime that's fine with you. As long as you live the "good life" who cares about humanity right? I hope that the good life is yanked away from people like you and then nobody comes to your aid.
I think that "Operation Iraqi Freedom" is marketing name that you have fallen for. This war is not about "liberating" Iraqis. I believe most Iraqis do not want us "liberating" them. But I suppose you don't really care about what they want do you?

Flavio you are guessing just the same as I am as to whether or not the Iraqis want us "liberating" them. I belive that they do and you believe that they don't. The only way to prove that would be to talk to them and I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon. My point was that you are complaining about not getting your big tax cut while soldiers and innocent Iraqis are dying. I hope your "good life" is worth it, all I'm asking for is a little respect and thanks for the soldiers.
I could give a crap about the tax cut. The point was directed at Marshalj because he said war helps the US live the "good life". As for the soldiers, they're not the problem. It's the people telling them what to do.

 

ASK THE COMMUNITY