Subject:
|
Re: My over-simplification of the anti-war movement
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 1 Apr 2003 04:44:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
106 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Costello writes:
> I don’t have the chance to respond with the same level of frequency here on
> OTD as many of the regulars, so this may sound like a hit and run, as I will
> voice my opinion and probably not respond to rebuttals in a timely fashion.
> I, however, desired to lay out my position in as simple a way as possible.
I happen to stuble upon this message and while commenting on this war is
normally out of my personal fasion, i would like to point out my
observations on the anti-war movement.
As Scott divided the protestors into groups, so will I:
1. Those spouting supposed claims without much evidence to support. eg: Bush
just wants the Oil!
2. THose opposing the United States in general. eg: the Arab countries.
My main beef is with group 1. Group 2 are mostly just misinformed to the
point of my no longer caring.
Group 1 however poses a more serious concern mainly because they have
platforms much weaker than the untied states government has. Of all the
protesters, i have seen little reason to support the causes. Some complain
about war being bad but that is just silly because that is obvious but war
will still forever happen. Others claim generalities and create assumptions
on speculations particularly oil. I haven't heard the president talk about
wanting oil so how is anyone to know that is his motive.
What particularly bothers me besides it taking nearly 1 million dollars a
day to combat protestors, is the one sidedness of the protests. Signs
condemning Bush abound but not critisizing Hussein. There are of course two
sides of the peace process.
Based on evidence provided to the public by our government, which i have
little reason to doubt seeing no real motive to decieve i do see
justification in this war. Saddam can supply terrorists to harm our
country, he is a threat. And since congress has supported the war effort,
this shows that this isn't a lone tyrant (as i've seen posters to claim) on
a warpath.
Ultimately I think the generalities provided by the protesters as
insubstantial with only claims and assumptions to buttress them. The
pro-war side however has provided clear proof-the USA has probably the best
itelligence program in the world- of iraq as a threat, at least compared to
the opposition.
-Nick
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | My over-simplification of the anti-war movement
|
| I don’t have the chance to respond with the same level of frequency here on OTD as many of the regulars, so this may sound like a hit and run, as I will voice my opinion and probably not respond to rebuttals in a timely fashion. I, however, desired (...) (22 years ago, 31-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
18 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
