Subject:
|
Re: Newspeak 2003
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 1 Apr 2003 19:56:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
251 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Costello writes:
> > So what have I missed? Are we not at war with Iraq? If we kill them we
> > are "liberating" Iraq, or "engaging" the enemy. If they kill us it is
> > "terrorism."
>
> This is an easy one, when an organized military wearing the uniforms, and
> flags of the country they represent acts based on declared military
> intentions, that is "engagement".
>
> When men dressed as civilians feign surrender before they fire on a group,
> or blows up a car when assistance is offered, or murders innocent women for
> simply waving at coalition forces, or uses the chemical or biological
> weapons that they say they don't have; that is "terrorism".
>
> No you are no less dead either way, but evil men like the Iraqi regime, seem
> to care little about how that is accomplished.
>
> Here are a couple more terms I have some trouble coming to grips with coming
> out of the anti-war crowd
>
> - "Rush to war" at worst this war was 12 years in the making, at best 14
> months, neither justify a "rush" in my mind.
And if there was a democrat in the big chair, this wouldn't be happening
right now, either, so, no, this war isn't 12 years in the making, it's
Dubya's little fiasco that he started when he wanted to be president.
If there were a war due to 12 years ago, it would have to be led by the UN
since it was the UN who imposed said restrictions and resolutions. Since
this *isn't* a UN war, this war is brand spankin' new, and was *definitely*
rushed in to, ill conceived and unjust. And we're going to face the fallout
from this "quick and dirty war" for many decades to come.
Just get him.
> - "unilateral" The root of this word is uni - meaning one or single, Even if
> you feel this war is just the US and UK that would be "bilateral" but then
> the Aussies are involved too, "trilateral"? what is the term for 45 nations
> participating?
45 nations participating because they were bought? Or because they are
going to 'reap rewards' after the war? Are these 45 nations behind the war
or only the leaders? Are these 45 nations much like the average citizen of
the United States--thinking that Iraq was the cause of 9/11, in which case
they're in this war under false pretenses?
Things that made me think.
That said, I still feel *today* that Canada has to support America. It'd be
much like the following example (and I love examples)
My best friend and I have been best friends for so long that it's hard to
imagine what life would be without each other.
Now my friend sometimes does stupid, and ill-thought things, but he's a
friend so I "put up" with it, not only because I'm no dream for friendship,
but it comes down to the idea that we are best buddies--that's what buddies do.
So my buddy goes off and gets in a scrap. Sure he didn't have to get into
this scrap, but he thought it was justified, and who he's scrapping against
is not a good person by any stretch of the imagination. So my buddy calls
out for help with his scrap.
What do I do, as his best friend? Sit on the sidelines and say, "Well, I
told you not to start this fight!"? That's not what friends do! Friends
"suit up" and get in it to help.
And that is *exactly* what Canada should be doing right now.
"Blair this and Blair that..." Whatever. Canada and the US share the
largest trade, the largest undefended border, and most great actors in
Hollywood are Canadian ;)
We should suit up, not because this war is right, but because the US are our
closest ally and friend. Who would be here to support us if someone had
aggressive tendencies towards Canada.
There are many points in the past where the US hasn't been too kind to
us--fiddling with trade agreements, and meddling with our military
structure, but whatever--matters not today. We have to stand beside our
friends, not only because they would stand beside us if we needed them, but
because that's just what friends do.
Dave K
>
> Scott C.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Newspeak 2003
|
| (...) Never assume that any overwhelming trend is due to ignorance. I don't know anyone who believes that Iraq was directly related to 9/11. Connected to terrorism yes, but not to that particular event. (...) Now this is downright herresy, Mike (...) (22 years ago, 1-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Newspeak 2003
|
| (...) I'm really touched that you said that. It means a lot to this American to hear you say so. And I mostly agree but did want to point out that if your friend was instead of taking on a bully, but were actively bullying an innocent victim, it (...) (22 years ago, 1-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Newspeak 2003
|
| (...) This is an easy one, when an organized military wearing the uniforms, and flags of the country they represent acts based on declared military intentions, that is "engagement". When men dressed as civilians feign surrender before they fire on a (...) (22 years ago, 1-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
24 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
