Originally posted by: smp
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Originally posted by: smp
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
To honestly expect protestors to ask for Iraqi compliance with the inspection regime is beyond the scope of comprehension for your typical bubbleheaded rhetoric-spouting anti-American protestor.
And your comment isn't rhetoric? The state of the union wasn't rhetoric?
Something about helping the aids shituation in Africa?
It seems it's just another case of actions speak louder than words... ?
What I said was rhetoric, but not in the same meaning you're using it. However, "rhetoric" isn't a bad word; it's a legitimate form of communication. For example, the State of the Union speech is a classic form of political rhetoric; no matter what it specifically says, everything in it is some form of rhetoric that serves a purpose. What I object to is the "bubbleheaded rhetoric-spouting anti-American protestor", the one whose thought processes on the whole Iraq issue don't go much deeper than "No War!" and "No blood for oil!" and "Bush is a warmonger!". My statement comes from the observation that the world's protesting population is unwilling or unable to look seriously at the problems that Saddam Hussein pose to the world, and how the world would be a different (and likely better) place without him. No one was protesting Saddam's non-compliance with the inspection regime, and why not?
Case in point: A FOX News program did an informal, unscientific "man on the street" interview with about 10 random protestors, asking the simple question "how long should the inspections continue?". The most common answer was "uhhhh...", and none of the interviewees had anything particularly thoughtful to say. While I admit that there are certainly thoughtful and eloquent people out there who disagree with Bush's policies (and I wholeheartedly support those people's rights to believe what they want and to speak their minds), I think we can agree that protesting is not about being thoughtful and eloquent. Protesting is about slogans and media impact and emotion.
Comment on the link you have provided: It's a one-sided propaganda piece that does not explore both sides of the issue. Therefore, it's hardly worthy of consideration, and even then with a grain of salt.
Out of so many protestors you don't think that FOX news found any that actually might know what they're talking about? I could go out in the street and find whatever answers I wanted to about whatever I wanted and I could paint people to look like idiots or geniuses if I want.. it's selective, they put the idiots on the TV just to prove to people like you that protestors are morons. I'm not doubting that many are, but there are very viable arguments that your side doesn't hear because of the general pro-war corporately backed media (ie, fox news).
Comment on the link you have provided: It's a one-sided propaganda piece that does not explore both sides of the issue. Therefore, it's hardly worthy of consideration, and even then with a grain of salt.
I feel the same way whenever I watch any main stream media. The capitalist argument is taken as a given, a-priori.
The link I provided was a quick search, I should have been more thorough. I not only bear a grudge against the states economical/political policies, but most of the wealthy nations, so don't feel like I'm singling out the States or anything.
The link is still valid to my point, the President still made promises about helping the epidemic in Africa, the U.S still voted against measures to lower medical costs to third world countries.
Yet... the WTO is still an ad hoc governing body worldwide that is not in any way democratic.
