Welcome To P8ntballer.com
The Home Of European Paintball
Sign Up & Join In

A letter to Bush

headrock6

Bloody Yanks!!
Jun 5, 2002
591
0
0
Strong Island
Visit site
Originally posted by JoseDominguez
been a while mate.
Couldn't argue with you over the war thing (bit too serious once the body count started).
:D

You almost had me baited with one of your other posts but the dull comment one was too good to pass up:) ..Shootings almost done though so I think we can resume hostilities:mad:
 

samdudin

New Member
Oct 16, 2002
24
0
0
London
Visit site
You're at it again!

Originally posted by duffistut
>>>So, with respect, I'm not talking ****e. But if you can't accept that, I'm not surprised, as the anti-war brigade always has had a hard time facing reality.

More ****e.


My post http://www.p8ntballer-forums.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17259&perpage=15&pagenumber=2 explains the 'talking ****e' comment Sam.:p
While admittedly the anti-war coilition is very broad, after attending various anti-war coilition meeting and quizzing Tony Ben and various other characters on their views, there seems to be a widely held idea amongst the people I've spoken to that all disputes can be solved peacefully. This is a fallacy, although it would be impossible for me to explain why in a sort message. If you really want to know, read Waltz's 'Man, the State, and War', a well respected postgrad level analysis of the causes of war, and the illusions of various liberalist approaches to war.

This is why I write that the anti-war coilition have a hard time facing reality, as it is a reality that war is sometimes the only way for a nation, or several nations, to adequately solve a dispute. There are limits to diplomacy, there are limits to coercion and there are limits to what can be achieved peacefully. And if your opponent knows you will never go to war, and that you are dedicated to peace, empirical evidence suggests that they could start taking the piss.
 

Skarra

The A-5, it's Evolution
Feb 11, 2003
55
0
0
Walsall Wood
Visit site
Another thing, all those Anti-war guys saying there's another way besides war. Peace is not just the lack of conflict, it's also the presence of justice. This war sent a message to all the meglamanic's out there, THEIR DAYS ARE NUMBERED. The west has hidden behind the shroud of diplomacy for years. This can not stand. Finally, Bush and Blair has the baIIs to fight, not only for national security, but for the good of all.
 
D

duffistuta

Guest
Hey, I hope you're right...

Watch out China, the boys are coming...:rolleyes:

My favourite article so far...


The Looking Glass War

By Peter Freundlich

All right. Let me see if I understand the logic of this correctly. We ignored the United Nations in order to teach Saddam Hussein that the United Nations cannot be ignored. We’ve waged war to preserve the United Nations’ ability to avert war. The paramount principle has been that the United Nations’ word must be taken seriously, and if we’ve had to subvert its word to guarantee that it is, then, by gum, so be it. Peace is too important not to take up arms to defend. Am I getting this right?

Further, if the only way to bring democracy to Iraq was to vitiate the democracy of the Security Council, then we were honor-bound to do that too because democracy as we define it is too important to be stopped by a little thing like democracy as they define it.

Also, in dealing with a man who brooks no dissension at home, we cannot afford dissension here: We must speak with one voice against Saddam Hussein’s failure to allow opposing voices to be heard. We have sent our gathered might to the Persian Gulf to make the point that might does not make right, as Saddam Hussein seems to think it does, and we twisted the arms of the opposition in order to force it to agree to let us oust a regime that twists the arms of the opposition. We cannot leave in power a dictator who ignores his own people, and if our people, and people elsewhere in the world, fail to understand that, then we have no choice but to ignore them.

Listen, don’t misunderstand. I think it is a good thing that the members of the Bush Administration seem to have been reading Lewis Carroll. I only wish someone had pointed out that Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass are meditations on paradox and puzzle and illogic and on the strangeness of things, not templates for foreign policy. It is amusing for the Mad Hatter to say something like “We must make war on him because he is a threat to peace,” but not amusing for someone who actually commands an army to say that.

As a collector of laughable arguments, I’d be enjoying all this were it not for the fact that I know—we all know—that lives will continue to be lost in what amounts to a freak circular-reasoning accident.
 
Yawn...time for important stuff

Right, so I heard that that marine who got captured already has a film optioned on her time in tha Gulf and that she’s being played by Sarah Michelle Lambini, sorry, Gellar, so I thought with my Hollywood connections I should get in on tha action. Whaddya you guys think of my idea…

Taxis of Evil

Basically, our hero Ulysses Unex (Dubyou, for short) and his wisecracking bud Rony Bear run a taxi firm, but their business is threatened by these other 3 companies who run muscle cars which may or may not have nuclear-powered engines and nitrous systems and other bad ****. These are tha Taxis of Evil.

So Dubyou decides to take em out and goes on a badass rampage, culminating in him doing a mad crazy car chase with tha first dude…bizarrely, tha bad mofo doesn’t use his box of illegal tricks for some reason so Dubyou blows his weak ass **** straight to hell.

Tha film ends with Dubyou an’ Rony staring into tha sunset, towards Taxi Company No. 2...just primed for tha sequel.

Cool or what?
 

Skarra

The A-5, it's Evolution
Feb 11, 2003
55
0
0
Walsall Wood
Visit site
To be fair, the French sold most of the stuff, not the US. Even, so, isn't this just showing how willing the US are to repair a mistake, even if it was made years ago.
 

Mark790.06

New Member
Apr 2, 2003
105
0
0
Florida
Visit site
Originally posted by Burb
If we are there for removing the WMD - which we are sure they have, why havent we found them yet?
Be patient, you'll have plenty of time to disbelieve the proof of WMD when they're finally presented.
Originally posted by Burb
Its a very expensive cost in life for "assuming" they have WMD.
What would the cost of life be to the Iraqi people had Saddam stayed in power? Why do you require proof that Iraq had WMD, but are sure that the US government (not to mention the political careers of Bush, Blair, Howard, and Aznar) would begin a war on an assumption?
Originally posted by Burb
Basically you havent proven your case that Iraq own weapons of WMD - you still need to proove this to the UN, and the rest of the world.
Why? We just went to war without UN and a good portion of world approval, what is that compared to your assertion of the immediacy to show cause after the fact?
Originally posted by Burb
Your saying by removing these WMD your going save the world from terrorist attacks?
No, I'm not saying that at all. You are saying that to try and lampoon what the US hopes to achieve with regime change in Iraq. It's rather petty actually, but typical.
Originally posted by Burb
Failing to realise that America's foriegn policy's are probabbly the main cause to the hate the eastern world has towards us, forgive me if im wrong but was the horrific 9/11 caused by a Weapon of Mass Destruction?
Is not our foreign policy different now than it was before 9/11? See, we learn from our mistakes.
Originally posted by Burb
This is why i said it was for Liberation, and until you find WMD the Media will constantly show pictures of Liberated Iraqi's to cover the fact you havent found WMD yet.
I don't know what media outlet you've been watching, but I've seen a lot of reporting slanted towards the negative. CNN withholding reports in an attempt to curry favors for an interview with Saddam, Dan Rather and Peter Arnett knowing full well that any interview would have to be approved by Saddam's propagandists, but going through with them regardless. And who can forget that tearful farewell between the Iraqi ambassador to the UN and that CNN reporter? Pretty much every report from Baghdad before the coalition arrived required approval/spin from the Iraqi minders. If a reporter's job is to find and report the truth what was all this about?
Originally posted by Burb
So Why Iraq first?
Did you have another country to invade in mind? Wasn't Afghanistan first?