Subject:
|
Re: I'm just going to take a back seat.... Re: You Can Lead A Horse To Water....
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 24 Mar 2003 02:30:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
543 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > More on this:
> > >
> > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2003/03/23/do2305.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2003/03/23/ixop.html
> >
> > Wow, what an amazing article. That should be required reading for any
> > protestor who takes up an anti-war sign.
> >
> > JOHN
>
> http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0209&article=020910
>
> This should be required reading for all the gun-toting "Shoot first, ask
> questions later" yahoos who think because they have the ability to shoot a
> gun, that using one solves problems better than any other way.
I appreciated the approach of this article, because I agreed with their
premise-- that to simply cry "no war" without providing any alternate solution
is mindless. It is unfortunate that the examples they gave to elucidate their
hypothesis in no way supported their assertion. Any example from WWII is bogus
because the Nazis *weren't* expelled by non-violence. It, in fact, required a
*great deal* of violence to overthrow them. To cite isolated examples of civil
uprising is absurd-- it really proves nothing, least of which their premise.
I wonder how they would explain the massacre at Tiennamen Square?
BTW, to which "gun-toting yahoos are you referring?
> Anti-war does *NOT* mean pro-Saddam.
I think it does, Dave. The one thing that made my blood boil during Useful
Idiot Dan Rather's Saddam interview was at the end when Saddam started
questioning Dan. He seemed particularily interested in the anti-war protests
in the US. I really believe that he gathered that the US didn't have the
fortitude to attack, or that if we did, internal pressure would cause a
cessation of force soon thereafter, enabling him to ride the storm out. Would
he have reacted differently to a US (or better, a UN) ultimatum if he felt that
the world was strongly united in their resolve to kick his butt? I believe the
anti-war crowd reinforced his delusion that he would somehow survive this war
when it should have been clearly apparent that he would not.
> Stop spouting rhetoric, John. I'll be picking up my anti-war sign
> again--why? Because it takes more courage to take a stand when you're not
> holding a gun than when you are.
How would you know? Do you even *own* a gun? I don't believe you know what
you are talking about.
JOHN
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
64 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
