Keepitsimple Posted July 20, 2008 Report Share Posted July 20, 2008 I wonder how this story would be spun if Khadr had killed a Canadian medic instead of an American......it could have easily happened that way. Think about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted July 20, 2008 Report Share Posted July 20, 2008 I wonder how this story would be spun if Khadr had killed a Canadian medic instead of an American......it could have easily happened that way. Think about it. Nothing would have happened...this kiss ass stuff for the Cheney crime family only seems to work if an American is killed...seeing the Americans send their own off to die...for no good reason - as we also do...It's the insult to the American administration that sets all afire..that someone has the nerver to rustle or kill one of THEIR human live stock...it's much like someone eating YOU lunch when you have enough to feed an army...if you know what I mean? America greed is what brings this attitude on..."how dare they take one of the herd" even if we have millions at our disposal. Besides - this is not a war..we are NOT at war...and if you think this is a war you are a fool - this is a game! For spoiled rich fools who want to prove their man hood from the safety of a bank tower in Montreal and or Toronto or Washington - it's pitiful...and we are stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted July 20, 2008 Report Share Posted July 20, 2008 Indeed...sit back and relax is exactly what you are doing in the end, because it is obvious on which side you choose to live and prosper. Unless you want to demonstrate real commitment to the cause by standing in front of a Caterpillar D-9. Not true. My (and anybody's) disagreement, whether pronounced, or even silent, already absolves us of complicity in these acts. Regardless of whether we happen to live here, or not. Think of this: if most of us just bothered to use our own brains and think for ourselves what's going on, rather than eating the crap we're fed while nodding in agreement - that in itself would have meant that these wars would have never come about. And what would be the point of standing in front of Caterpillar, anyways? It'll happen naturally, a few years down, as so many times before. Remember, this is not the first needless war, and very likely, not the last one. If a bunch of warmongering boneheads can make a whole nation start a full blown war, for no reason, despite all lessons of history, all warnings, and all checks and balances, the prognosis can't be good. We only get our penny's worth, and no more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 20, 2008 Report Share Posted July 20, 2008 Not true. My (and anybody's) disagreement, whether pronounced, or even silent, already absolves us of complicity in these acts. Regardless of whether we happen to live here, or not. Think of this: if most of us just bothered to use our own brains and think for ourselves what's going on, rather than eating the crap we're fed while nodding in agreement - that in itself would have meant that these wars would have never come about. What you think or say are insignificant compared to what you do (and don't do). And what would be the point of standing in front of Caterpillar, anyways? It'll happen naturally, a few years down, as so many times before. Remember, this is not the first needless war, and very likely, not the last one. If a bunch of warmongering boneheads can make a whole nation start a full blown war, for no reason, despite all lessons of history, all warnings, and all checks and balances, the prognosis can't be good. We only get our penny's worth, and no more. And yet you won't even spend that penny's worth to change anything. Not where it counts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted July 21, 2008 Report Share Posted July 21, 2008 Whatever this supposed to mean? What Al Quaeda is wrong to murder innocent civilians? No question. What we're right to invade their countries, set things to our liking, prop up governments of our liking? I won't be certain of that. It's clear who's bad. But who's on the good side? Anyone? Al Queda doesn't have a country, they are a terrorist organization who's business is screwing up countries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 21, 2008 Report Share Posted July 21, 2008 Al Queda doesn't have a country, they are a terrorist organization who's business is screwing up countries. Right...they don't wear cute Al Qaeda flags on their backpacks. So we have to find them...and kill them. Pretty simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted July 21, 2008 Report Share Posted July 21, 2008 What you think or say are insignificant compared to what you do (and don't do). Yep, right. I don't agree with Bushes global democracy conquest. I don't unquestionnably swallow their bs propaganda, and may even attempt to challenge it, even if in this forum. That's a whole lot more compared to what some 80% of American public, and some 50% of British public, and some 45% of Canadian public, who supported these wars, have ever "done". And I'm quite content with that. I'm not of the opinion that my time will be well spent on educating some clueless Joe / Jill who wont' care to turn their brain on for an extra minute more than necessary to figure out how to stuff more of useless stuff into their den. Otherwise they could have recalled that "war is bad". Something they were taught in kindergarten and being played with fanfares every year multiple times. Asked themselves, and buddies, questions about WMD. Ballistic missile threats. No, to each, their own. Over the time, and on average, everybody gets their fair due. We won't be any different, no matter how much we may want to believe otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 21, 2008 Report Share Posted July 21, 2008 Yep, right. I don't agree with Bushes global democracy conquest. I don't unquestionnably swallow their bs propaganda, and may even attempt to challenge it, even if in this forum. That's a whole lot more compared to what some 80% of American public, and some 50% of British public, and some 45% of Canadian public, who supported these wars, have ever "done". And I'm quite content with that. That's fine, but at a more basic and organic level you are nevertheless complicit in these and other wars, if only by living and prospering from the fruit of such actions. So I understand being content with strongly opposing wars (except those that you aprove of) while still benefitting from the larger scheme of things. It is very convenient that way. I'm not of the opinion that my time will be well spent on educating some clueless Joe / Jill who wont' care to turn their brain on for an extra minute more than necessary to figure out how to stuff more of useless stuff into their den. Otherwise they could have recalled that "war is bad". Something they were taught in kindergarten and being played with fanfares every year multiple times. Asked themselves, and buddies, questions about WMD. Ballistic missile threats. That's a value judgement you can really only make for yourself. Many other brains that are "turned on" have concluded a different approach. Lot's of things are "bad", but it doesn't mean they shouldn't exist. No, to each, their own. Over the time, and on average, everybody gets their fair due. We won't be any different, no matter how much we may want to believe otherwise. Oh yes, please carry on the good fight, win...lose...or draw. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted July 21, 2008 Report Share Posted July 21, 2008 It is very convenient that way. Who said it shouldn't be? While it can be had? At least it's better than the alternative. There's no point in marching, petioning, jumping under tanks etc, just to draw the attention of a clueless Jo on their third hamburger. All that needs to be said, had been said already, million times. Things should be taken in historical perspective. If we won't use our brains, our concsiousness, our choices, they'll be decided for us. Eventually. By the course of nature. Vegetative existence can only last so long. Not very long, as historical times go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 21, 2008 Report Share Posted July 21, 2008 Al Queda doesn't have a country, they are a terrorist organization who's business is screwing up countries. Exactly. That people can take their side in almost anything is beyond belief. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted July 21, 2008 Report Share Posted July 21, 2008 No, what is astonishing is that people can very well look and not see. Or, try to see, but with their ears, rather than eyes. We aren't fighting Al Quaeda, as much as establishing and supporting friendly regimes in these countries, by force and by invasion. Is it really the same thing? How and why did happen? After all the incantations, celebrations, and proclamations? Clueless Jo would sure have an answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 21, 2008 Report Share Posted July 21, 2008 No, what is astonishing is that people can very well look and not see. Or, try to see, but with their ears, rather than eyes. We aren't fighting Al Quaeda, as much as establishing and supporting friendly regimes in these countries, by force and by invasion.... Not even friendly as much as stable and capable of controlling the locals. That's one reason Canada "invaded" Haiti....but they are too poor to afford IEDs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted July 21, 2008 Report Share Posted July 21, 2008 (edited) Not really, Canada have't invaded Haiti and has no significant military presence there. As we haven't recently nuked other people, or educated them in democratic ways by force and against their will (that is, before Afghanistan, and after residential schools). Not that it makes us completely out in the clean - but accents should be made, for the completeness of picture. Let's also attribute kudos (of special sort) for Iraq and Afghanistan where they are due. Edited July 21, 2008 by myata Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 21, 2008 Report Share Posted July 21, 2008 Not really, Canada have't invaded Haiti and has no significant military presence there. As we haven't recently nuked other people, or educated them in democratic ways by force and against their will (that is, before Afghanistan, and after residential schools). Not that it makes us completely out in the clean - but accents should be made, for the completeness of picture. Let's also attribute kudos (of special sort) for Iraq and Afghanistan where they are due. Clearly you are ignoring Canada's role in the 2004 invasion of Haiti and Operation Allied Force against Serbia in 1999, or the Gulf War I bombing of Iraq. That's OK...I have come to recognize the Canadian gene that stubbornly ignores reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted July 22, 2008 Report Share Posted July 22, 2008 As is this particular gene (I wouldn't generalize on its national makeup) that prevents us from understanding, and applying, the voluntary (or call them "moral" if you like, though the word is too stretched at this time to mean anything) limits to our use of force. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 22, 2008 Report Share Posted July 22, 2008 As is this particular gene (I wouldn't generalize on its national makeup) that prevents us from understanding, and applying, the voluntary (or call them "moral" if you like, though the word is too stretched at this time to mean anything) limits to our use of force. Voluntary limits ("restraint") are exercised all the time....the Americans haven't seriously nuked anybody since 1945, even though it could. The word "moral" is more irrelevant than stretched. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted July 22, 2008 Report Share Posted July 22, 2008 Like who? The soviets? Chinese? They sure could - but wouldn't, right? With the rest, one can't be certain about the nature of the "restraint". It just could have more to do with the cost/benefit, than the morality, of the matter. The thing with "moral" restraint is, that it trades the brutal, physical power, for that of goodwill and mutual respect. Almost by the ubiquitous law of conservation. And of course, goodwill and understanding allows to combine the powers of many, rather than setting them against each other in a zero sum game. Benefitting everybody, the assumed leader included. That approach of course, requires the true courage. Not that of raining bombs thousands of miles away. The courage of letting go of the brute power. That looks so nice and shiny in its polished shells and can do so much good. The courage of contributing to, and accepting the consenus, even when it goes against our apparent immediate wishes. The courage and will to not give in to one's fears and paranoias. Oh well... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 22, 2008 Report Share Posted July 22, 2008 Like who? The soviets? Chinese? They sure could - but wouldn't, right? With the rest, one can't be certain about the nature of the "restraint". It just could have more to do with the cost/benefit, than the morality, of the matter. The "morality" angle is irrelevant....like bringing a knife to a gun fight. The thing with "moral" restraint is, that it trades the brutal, physical power, for that of goodwill and mutual respect. Almost by the ubiquitous law of conservation. And of course, goodwill and understanding allows to combine the powers of many, rather than setting them against each other in a zero sum game. Benefitting everybody, the assumed leader included. Right....that works well for the meerkats....not the elephants. Teddy Roosevelt succinctly embodied the American treatment of such a notion..."Speak softly and carry a big stick". That approach of course, requires the true courage. Not that of raining bombs thousands of miles away. The courage of letting go of the brute power. That looks so nice and shiny in its polished shells and can do so much good. The courage of contributing to, and accepting the consenus, even when it goes against our apparent immediate wishes. The courage and will to not give in to one's fears and paranoias. Oh well... Oh well indeed....there is no letting go....power is either in the hands of those who have it or desired by those who don't. "Consensus" gave us wars and abortions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted July 23, 2008 Report Share Posted July 23, 2008 ....like bringing a knife to a gun fight. Right; and who'd be with the knife in that picture? "Consensus" gave us wars and abortions. While the empires only emanate prosperity and bliss. As said, there's nothing new under the Sun. Time to throw away stones and time pick them up. Build - blow up, in a forever cycle. Yawn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted July 25, 2008 Report Share Posted July 25, 2008 Wow i'm suprised McCain would say that. Good to hear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.