She is the freakin spokesperson for United for Peace and Justice. If the spokesperson is not a strong well informed advocate, what the hell does that say about the organization?Originally posted by: dew042
if you guys actaully believe that she was picked because she was a strong well informed advocate - you are mistaken. she was picked for this dialog to be beat up. the slanted nature of this conversation was quite obivious since the host did not even require that the other guest show her the most basic respect - as he was allowed to constantly interupt and call her names. i don't care how much you dislike someone's opinion - calling them 'little girl' is not okay.
this is shameful journalism at it worst.
otoh - it was pretty funny how incompentant she really was
dew.
this sounds so fake. the accent sounds like my a$$.
no matter how much the dude complains about saddam...his point is about as legitimate as bush's presidency.
no matter how much the dude complains about saddam...his point is about as legitimate as bush's presidency.
This is funny, even though I don't agree with the girls point, I am embarassed for her becuase of the fool she is making of herself. Most of the peace protestors out there have this exact mentality.
Wolfie:
Of course we're targeting Saddam, but alot of Iraqi civilians will die as a result of this. We certainly try to avoid it, but its a fact. Innocent Iraqis will die as a direct result of our actions. Do you think they are happy that their cities will be bombed?? They know that they could be collateral damage. Its really easy to sit here and say "Iraqis, it might suck for a while, but trust us, it will work out and your life will improve." You don't live in Baghdad where the 3000 bombs will drop in 2 day. Most of the people of Baghdad will be without power and water. They will, in effect, be confined to their houses for most of the war if they want to have the best chance of survival. And I don't think they're looking forward to occupation by a foreign nation. Not every nation welcomes the US as "liberators" with open arms.
Of course we influenced other nations during the Cold War. But at the time the rules were different due to the bipolar world. We had to play the NATO/Warsaw Pact game. The third world nations aligning themselves to one power or another. But that era ended around the date you mentioned. Now we find ourselves in a new geopolical landscape, with near American hegemony (no doubt military hegemony, but on economic side the EU together can rival the US's power).
Yes alot of things have happened since the end of the cold war, but American hasn't asserted its hegemony since then. This notion of pre-emptive strike is a dangerous precident to set.
Edit:Here's a nice passage I read today that sums it up well:
This is what Shrub and Co. do not get. It is not a matter of what a bad man Saddam is, or what he might do 10 years from now. It is a matter of what the U.S. has stood for in the twentieth century, which is a world ruled by law, not power, or as they said in early American politics, "principles, not men." One of those principles, embedded in the laws of every modern civilized society that I know of, including Texas, is that no person or state gets to deal out violence and punishment unless a crime has been committed or there is an immediately clear and present danger that one is about to be. Even in the cases where defensive violence is used legitimately, that is only true if conforms to the appropriate legal standards and procedures. Individual persons, and individual leaders, don't simply get to decide whether those standards have been met, without restraint or accountability. Proving this point was one of the reasons that Nuremberg trials were held. The Bush position seems to be that our present status as the world's only remaining superpower places us above any law other than the presidential will, a position that violates the most basic precepts of American republicanism. And we are not talking precepts that Bush would have had to read books without pictures to learn about it.
Of course we're targeting Saddam, but alot of Iraqi civilians will die as a result of this. We certainly try to avoid it, but its a fact. Innocent Iraqis will die as a direct result of our actions. Do you think they are happy that their cities will be bombed?? They know that they could be collateral damage. Its really easy to sit here and say "Iraqis, it might suck for a while, but trust us, it will work out and your life will improve." You don't live in Baghdad where the 3000 bombs will drop in 2 day. Most of the people of Baghdad will be without power and water. They will, in effect, be confined to their houses for most of the war if they want to have the best chance of survival. And I don't think they're looking forward to occupation by a foreign nation. Not every nation welcomes the US as "liberators" with open arms.
Of course we influenced other nations during the Cold War. But at the time the rules were different due to the bipolar world. We had to play the NATO/Warsaw Pact game. The third world nations aligning themselves to one power or another. But that era ended around the date you mentioned. Now we find ourselves in a new geopolical landscape, with near American hegemony (no doubt military hegemony, but on economic side the EU together can rival the US's power).
Yes alot of things have happened since the end of the cold war, but American hasn't asserted its hegemony since then. This notion of pre-emptive strike is a dangerous precident to set.
Edit:Here's a nice passage I read today that sums it up well:
This is what Shrub and Co. do not get. It is not a matter of what a bad man Saddam is, or what he might do 10 years from now. It is a matter of what the U.S. has stood for in the twentieth century, which is a world ruled by law, not power, or as they said in early American politics, "principles, not men." One of those principles, embedded in the laws of every modern civilized society that I know of, including Texas, is that no person or state gets to deal out violence and punishment unless a crime has been committed or there is an immediately clear and present danger that one is about to be. Even in the cases where defensive violence is used legitimately, that is only true if conforms to the appropriate legal standards and procedures. Individual persons, and individual leaders, don't simply get to decide whether those standards have been met, without restraint or accountability. Proving this point was one of the reasons that Nuremberg trials were held. The Bush position seems to be that our present status as the world's only remaining superpower places us above any law other than the presidential will, a position that violates the most basic precepts of American republicanism. And we are not talking precepts that Bush would have had to read books without pictures to learn about it.
Unless you have the power, whatever you say or do cannot stop the inevitable. You can alter it but you cannot stop it.
UnatcoAgent
Diamond Member
- Oct 25, 1999
- 5,462
- 1
- 0
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter