A message for the Bush Supporters...

[syzygy]

Originally posted by: Tabb

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

-Hermann Goering, Hitlers Reich-Marshell

on september 11, 2001, the iraq imbroglio was ten years old. the planet knew saddam was
vile and intransigent before osama made his name. the differences between saddam and
osama were nil when judged by their wanton violence against innocent people. the u.n.
unscom director, richard butler, declared the proliferation of wmd in rogue nations to be
'the greatest threat' to world peace, hence the title of his book. all the bush admin needed
to do was bridge the small distance between saddam's sponsorship of terrorism and his
desire for wmd to make a pressing case for immediate action, assuming diplomacy had
been exhausted. after 12 years of being toyed with by saddam, i think the answer is obvious.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: syzygy

Originally posted by: Tabb

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

-Hermann Goering, Hitlers Reich-Marshell

on september 11, 2001, the iraq imbroglio was ten years old. the planet knew saddam was
vile and intransigent before osama made his name. the differences between saddam and
osama were nil when judged by their wanton violence against innocent people. the u.n.
unscom director, richard butler, declared the proliferation of wmd in rogue nations to be
'the greatest threat' to world peace, hence the title of his book. all the bush admin needed
to do was bridge the small distance between saddam's sponsorship of terrorism and his
desire for wmd to make a pressing case for immediate action, assuming diplomacy had
been exhausted. after 12 years of being toyed with by saddam, i think the answer is obvious.

Name one thing Saddam did that would warrent a complete invasion and take over.

 

[syzygy]

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: syzygy

Originally posted by: Tabb

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

-Hermann Goering, Hitlers Reich-Marshell

on september 11, 2001, the iraq imbroglio was ten years old. the planet knew saddam was
vile and intransigent before osama made his name. the differences between saddam and
osama were nil when judged by their wanton violence against innocent people. the u.n.
unscom director, richard butler, declared the proliferation of wmd in rogue nations to be
'the greatest threat' to world peace, hence the title of his book. all the bush admin needed
to do was bridge the small distance between saddam's sponsorship of terrorism and his
desire for wmd to make a pressing case for immediate action, assuming diplomacy had
been exhausted. after 12 years of being toyed with by saddam, i think the answer is obvious.

Name one thing Saddam did that would warrent a complete invasion and take over.

one ? how about three ?

a- state sponsor of terrorism.
b- desire for wmd (saddam's own recent confession), proven wmd capabilities (see dr. kay's
january 2004 congressional testimony); 17 broken u.n. resolution regarding such.
c - two aggresive wars against his neignbors.

how's that, good ?

 

[RobCur]

Originally posted by: MoobyTheGoldenCalf

Originally posted by: Tabb

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

-Hermann Goering, Hitlers Reich-Marshell

Sore loser, eh?

The only sore loser we have so far are we the people who are too weak minded to think with their head (barks but no action). If someone keeps repeating something over and over, especially a lie, they will think it's the truth. out of fear, out of ignorance of the reality of whats been done to this country... like robots, it can be made to believe whatever is fed to it. 4 years of recession still not enough of disappointment? Evils always triump, the survival of the fittest plays a major role here.
History repeats itself over and over, the only one who suffer the most are civilians, or should I say peasants?