Refusing to go to War (edit)

M

MaroonHerring

New member
we can't. we're in a position to where, if we do something to help, all we get is "mind your own business" or "go home" from people like you, and if we do nothing then all we get is "why did the us not interact or provide relief?" from alot of the european countries. not to mention germany banging france under our noses and selling weapons to and cash to saddam. when we stopped it we got more crap. we are in a position to where we are damned if we do and damned if we don't.
 
G

GettoCrunk

New member
thepunisher said:
So you get to see TV shows with more swearing and breasts. You clearly don't understand *what* the FCC censors. BTW, the cencorship is only to the effect of, the TV station has to pay a fine, or something like that if it violates any of the guidlines. TV shows don't have to be approved or modified by the FCC to be aired. Otherwise we'd never have SNL, which doesn't even have a 5 second tape delay like most live shows (edit: I mean, for God's sake, they're not even allowed to use the word "computer" in France without paying a fine. And you think censoring the f word is skewing our outlook on the war?).

Plus, I don't believe a lot of cable stations are regulated (like HBO), because they don't go over broadcast airwaves. That's the real purpose of the FCC - to regulated airwave frequencies.

BTW, we don't have to pay for a licence to watch our TVs.

also - Sadaam didn't just "allegedly", but actually shoved people through meat grinders and gassed them. That sounds pretty bad to be.
Click to expand...
 
D

durdenslabs

New member
thepunisher said:
First off, talking about speaking without having a clue again...look at my location. I am from Winnipeg, CANADA. I am Canadian, not American.

Did you actually use the word 'allegedly' when describing Saddams actions against his people? Yikes...is that kind of like how some people say that Hitlers actions allegedly happened? Come on....

Converting to Christianity? So you think that free choice will make them convert? If that is the case, then they are not too happy with their own religion. Are you just saying stuff randomly here?

You see no solution to terrorism? What you are really saying is again that you are scared and therefore lets stand here stunned...looking into the headlights as the truck smashes into us! It does not work for a deer and it will not work for us either. Action was/is needed and thankfully not everyone is as complacent as the nay sayers, lest this world go all to hell...

Leave people to their own solutions? Are you insane? I guess the MAP moderators do not need to monitor this forum for breaking the rules, since we can leave everyone to control themselves.... The solutions these people are deciding on is terrorism...plain and simple.
Click to expand...
 
N

Not_true

New member
MarioBro said:
NOT! ....

Everyone take a deep breath ... and stay on track. Stop bringing other issues into play.

Subject of the thread is "Refusing to go to War" be it U.S. Canada, UK or some other planet you may be on
Click to expand...
 
C

challenger_88

New member
***Converting to Christianity? So you think that free choice will make them convert? If that is the case, then they are not too happy with their own religion. Are you just saying stuff randomly here?
You see no solution to terrorism? What you are really saying is again that you are scared and therefore lets stand here stunned...looking into the headlights as the truck smashes into us! It does not work for a deer and it will not work for us either. Action was/is needed and thankfully not everyone is as complacent as the nay sayers, lest this world go all to hell...***

Well, tell me something: Installing McDonalds in Iraq (where seven miles of people lined up on the first day)and other US stores..what choices does that leave to the poeple ? They don't have their own things anymore as they got destroyed during the War itself and now the only things left for them are things from the US. And concerning Democracy: Think it was their choice to be democratic ? Not really, looking at some of the reactions of the poeple in the country with some even hating the US for invading the country. And looking that US soldiers get blown up for being in the country should also make you wonder if they really wanted this invasion or being democratic.

And what concerns terrorism: I'm not scared of terrorism. Hey, its been happening for years and years but the only thing is it has been highlighted by the President of the US as a way to win votes. Can he solve the problem ? I don't think so as there are many different terrorist groups and new groups will always appear. How is he going to stop them ? Declare War on every country that he suspects has terrorists ? Great solution. And with the next President all of a sudden the fight stops. Its like trying to fight drugs.....
 
S

SpiderPig

New member
Do you think that the US has money just lying around? We're talking $35 almost immediately. It takes time to come up with large amounts of money, even for the US government. Furthermore, tax rates in the US are low compared to many European countries. The people of the United States raised a tremendous amount of money privately for the victims. It makes absolutely no sense to judge the country over the size of the initial aid. Would it have been better for the government to wait a bit longer just so that their initial aid package could appear larger?
 
S

scarlettw

New member
Well, really is it that hard to come up with that kind of money if the US government spends 47 bio $ on a War ? IF the US president himself after the War in Iraq AGAIN requests the same amount ? Do you know that one famous celebrity, Michael Schuhmacher, gave 10 mio $ of his own money to the Tsunami victims, which if thinking about it is nearly 1/3 of what the US was willing to spend at first. And this is one person, not a government willing to spend loads on war and its war machine. And speaking of people raising more money than their government, the UK people raised the same amount and more than 75 mio pds. that the government was giving.
 
K

knt102000

Member
AZeitung said:
I think what he was reffering to was the ridiculous lack of coverage of anti war points of view on the airwaves in America. Of the top 17 news networks the survey found that as a percentage of time covering the war the most airtime they gave to negative views was 1% and it was also noted that the majority of coverage portrayed anti war people as being left wing and softhearted liberalls.
Click to expand...
 
T

thefirstamerican

New member
Slindsay said:
Yes, that is exactly what I was referring to. Thank you Slindsay. The coverage portrayed the people against the war as being left wing and also showed the Iraqies and Saddam as bad people without ever touching on what maybe the people really thought. I remember on Belgian television an Iraquie was quoted as being enraged with the country being invaded by the US. I wonder how many people in the US actually got to see that ?
Click to expand...
 
S

somekidwhoplaysstarcraft

New member
Who did this poll and when? Actually watching the news gives a very different impression from what that poll says.

And I didn't even know there *were* 17 different news networks. You've got the regular broadcast networks ABC, CBS, and NBC (not just news, but they do have news). Then the cable news networks, CNN, MSNBC, FOX, CNBC, and possibly some others. The remaining 10 can't be all that popular.

Am I the only one who was continually hearing "we're doomed to failure", "this is taking a lot longer than expected", and "they don't want us there."?

Let me guess, it was a BBC poll, wasn't it?
 
E

EvilAngel

Member
..that if there is a War anywere its the US who goes to it or even starts it-aka Iraq-and sadly, instead of being unpatriotic people, especially the younger generation seems to have no second thoughts of volunteering to get killed or even think that what the president of the country is doing might actually be wrong in the first place. That creates enemies in other countries and it also shows a little bit of naiveness on the part of the US population. Concerning the question you ask about, if my country would ask me to go to War, NO I wouldn't go !!! Especially as in the "cause" of the US it was proven it was all a bunch of lies. So tell me, would you go to War based on a bunch of lies ? I certainly wouldn't. But hey, I wouldn't go to War, period. I don't want to have the guilty conscience of having killed someone just because some president told me to do so.[/QUOTE]


Let me ask you...what provocation do you need to defend yourself? As a martial artist I dont think you would tollerate getting beaten half to death before you addressed the situation. I am tired of hearing people say the war is wrong. Is war wrong as a general idea yes are we wrong this time NO. Do people unfortunatley die in a war? YES. But how many Iraqi's need to die before we actually do something?? This is before my time but we were condemned for standing aside during WW2 while Hitler comitted Mass genocide. Now that we are trying to prevent it again we are still wrong? What is your solution? Everybody has opinons and problems but than offer up a solution to the problem we face because sitting on our hands isnt it. Clinton did that and look what happened we were attacked 3 seperate times and each one bigger than the last. I applaud what Bush is doing and I think it is time we had someone with a pair of balls to make a decision. Where is your pride in your country? if you arent willing to defend your country you shouldnt be willing to partake of the freedoms it provides you.
 
G

GoneFishing

Member
Its called being pre emptive. Which means if you think you are in danger of being hit you hit first. You honestly think that standing up to a bully encourages them more than just allowing them to continue?? Or should we have 5 other people all stand around and try to talk to the bully and make him see the error of his ways. I am not a violent person at all as a matter of fact I am Middle Eastern and i hate what this projected on my race but what emboldens these terrorists is that we allow them to continue with no reprocussions.
 
M

MikieLikesItt

Member
** Let me ask you...what provocation do you need to defend yourself? As a martial artist I dont think you would tolerate getting beaten half to death before you addressed the situation. **

Actually Hawk, I would make sure that the provocation would never happen in the first place. If someone would provoke me, like actually happened just a day ago, I would simply listen to them and talk my way out of it. Of course, if that person would still want to attack me I would use what I know as a MA. But that would give me no reason to beat them half to death. Just to make sure they don't ever try to do that with me. Since you are speaking of a MA's point-of-view and this is a MA forum how about we try to realize that the best defense is not to get into a fight in the first place. Or to take revenge on someone else for what they have done to us...
 
B

BebaJ

New member
From my view here, only Fox News would give less time to anti war people and it's 1 network out of "17" which all usually glorify protestors. I'd also like to note tsunami aid isn't a big thing for our govt because we aren't socialists. Private donations always are WAY above govt ones.

But on the real issue, I'm not a fan of killing people. It would depend on the war tho, i can see people not wanting fight the war in Iraq, they don't see it as important. If the war is big and losing it would be bad (i.e WW2), i wouldn't have a problem. I'd still try for a more peaceful way or a less killing involved job but i'd feel the need to help. Same thing with an invasion, who wouldn't fight to keep their own life, family and home?
 
T

thuwillowwhispered

New member
Let me ask you this: If in a tournament you are facing an opponent would you strike him down first before the fight has started just to make sure he is already disabled before the fight even starts ? I think you would surely be disqualified by the judges. And just because you are in danger you hit someone first ? Would you start a fight just because you suspect someone in the room wants to attack you ? Even though he hasn't attacked you yet ?
Concerning the terrorism: don't you ever wonder if the way the US is handling the Middle East is exactly provoking these terrorist reactions ? That if they would stop trying to put there oppinions on other countries maybe they would be left alone ?
 
S

supabiscuit

New member
I actually agree with that in MA world. but lets be reall as a Martial Artist confronted with personal injury you would defend yourself ( I hope). Its too late to go back and say we were never attacked so what is your answer to the problem? How do we prevent it from happening again? Finally do you realise that Clinton took your lets just talk to them approach for 8 years and look what happened. When do you relaise that some people can not be reasoned with?
 
E

EmmahJ

New member
If I was attacked I would defend myself. But I would not attack first in order not to get injured. To be honest, I don't exactly know what the answer to the problem is but I don't think attacking the Middle Eastern countries on the assumption that all Middle Eastern people are terrorists is a solution. Or trying to get rid of all evil people we "know of" will get rid of further evil. And do you think its a solution to simply attack a country because those poeple apparently can't be reasoned with ? What do hostage negotiators due ? Try to calm the hostage taker down and reason with him. Why ? To diffuse the situation and to prevent further harm. They don't go attacking him because they know that a further provocation will kill more hostages.

P.S: I've noticed while reading some answers to my posts that some of my quotes were either corrected (I'm okay with that)but if someone changes a quote in such a way that its not what I said originally anymore I will report it to a moderator.
 
Top