Subject:
|
Re: Hotel Palestine
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 8 Apr 2003 21:20:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
146 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> I must take exception to the use of the term "coalition" -- a coded term
> intended to suggest dozens in numbers when in actuality only 3 countries are
> actively participating in the INVASION of Iraq: the U.S., England, and
> Australia.
(I have reasons to believe there is a Polish contingent over there as well;
and I know that the Spanish Navy has ships deployed in the region to assist
in the operations. It's a wider gang than you may think at first, even
though only 3 of the members want to show their faces)
> Further, there may be the false belief that the "elected" representatives in
> these countries are pursuing the will of their respective constituents when
> one gets the sense that nothing could be further from the truth. Sure, it's
> possible that a "clueless" majority want to get some payback for 911 or
> believe the lies about WMD and democracy in the middle east -- but the rest
> of us are just appalled at the blatant usurpation of our opposition to this
> maniacal war. Our elected officials, almost across the board, suckle at the
> corporate teat and are obsessed with being associated with the "winning
> side" -- they have therefore ignored our demands and pleas to stop this war
> madness right this minute. This war is not prosecuted in our names; but, in
> fact, over our collective and vociferous objections.
I'm not questioning the orders, Richard - I don't think anyone in the top
level wanted for this to happen. I'm also not questioning if the war is fair
or not, since it appears to be almost over. I'm questioning the idiocy of
one soldier, that was broadcast live throughout the world and despite that
is being denied by the Pentagon.
> Let's keep it nice and simple. Please don't use the term "coalition" -- use
> "invading forces" instead. As an example you might have written the following:
>
> "appalled by this demonstration of idiocy from a soldier, which *I hope* is
> not representative of the bulk of the invading forces"
I could just as well have written "armed forces", period. I don't care which
country is his... all I want is a bit more care put in the choice of the
troops. This sort of things happens when the soldiers get carried away,
which they can't. They're paid NOT TO. This one did, and he's being excused
of it!
The excuse given, that "journalists know the risks", is preposterous.
Pedro
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Hotel Palestine
|
| I must take exception to the use of the term "coalition" -- a coded term intended to suggest dozens in numbers when in actuality only 3 countries are actively participating in the INVASION of Iraq: the U.S., England, and Australia. Further, there (...) (21 years ago, 8-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
49 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
