|
|
#1
12-14-2006, 04:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Lots of hipocrites that are against the war
People who say Iraq war is wrong because since there are no WMDs, no direct threat to america, USA is just acting as world polieceman.
But some of these same people say the USA should have helped in the Rwandan genocide or other situations where it clearly got out of hand. Although the iraq situation was not that bad, it surely could have escalated to a civil war at a near future (like if saddam died naturally and there was a power struggle to claim his seat, giving room to disorder) also, a lot of these people who dont want USA to be the world's polieceman say the US should donate food to the hungry. Why is that different from fighting for their liberty? Some people actually value liberty over nutrition. just because you call it "war" and there is violence involved, it automatically becomes something politically correct to protest about? thought.. 
|
|
#2
12-14-2006, 05:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Lots of hipocrites that are against the war
See movies "Hotel Rwanda", "killing fields", "shooting dogs", "Schindler's list" "the Pianist" or any film/documentary about rwandan genocide, khamer rouge, nazi germany, soviet goulags, etc.
then tell me if USA intervening in rogue states is a good or bad thing.
|
|
#3
12-14-2006, 05:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Lots of hipocrites that are against the war
Point?
How many of those who are "for" the war say we should do something about Darfur? How many backed Clinton's moves into Kosovo and Haiti? How many said we should not be involved in "nation building"? Guess both sides have their share of hypocrites.
|
|
#4
12-14-2006, 05:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Lots of hipocrites that are against the war
[ QUOTE ]
People who say Iraq war is wrong because since there are no WMDs, no direct threat to america, USA is just acting as world polieceman. But some of these same people say the USA should have helped in the Rwandan genocide or other situations where it clearly got out of hand. Although the iraq situation was not that bad, it surely could have escalated to a civil war at a near future (like if saddam died naturally and there was a power struggle to claim his seat, giving room to disorder) also, a lot of these people who dont want USA to be the world's polieceman say the US should donate food to the hungry. Why is that different from fighting for their liberty? Some people actually value liberty over nutrition. just because you call it "war" and there is violence involved, it automatically becomes something politically correct to protest about? thought.. [/ QUOTE ] Sorry, but this is illogical. You can be for some actions and not others. Also, people get a bit pissy when they are told a reason for a war that wasnt true (whether it was a lie or not).
|
|
#5
12-14-2006, 06:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Lots of hipocrites that are against the war
[ QUOTE ]
Although the iraq situation was not that bad, it surely could have escalated to a civil war at a near future (like if saddam died naturally and there was a power struggle to claim his seat, giving room to disorder) [/ QUOTE ] Yes of course. Because the situation could have gotten out of order in the future let's invade them and get it out of order now. All the while spending over $300 billion and thousands of lives. [ QUOTE ] also, a lot of these people who dont want USA to be the world's polieceman say the US should donate food to the hungry. Why is that different from fighting for their liberty? [/ QUOTE ] Seriously? You don't understand the difference between donating food and fighting wars that cause death and destruction? [ QUOTE ] just because you call it "war" and there is violence involved, it automatically becomes something politically correct to protest about? thought.. [/ QUOTE ] You don't think death and destruction is something to protest? Seems kind of sick.
|
|
#6
12-14-2006, 07:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Lots of hipocrites that are against the war
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Although the iraq situation was not that bad, it surely could have escalated to a civil war at a near future (like if saddam died naturally and there was a power struggle to claim his seat, giving room to disorder) [/ QUOTE ] Yes of course. Because the situation could have gotten out of order in the future let's invade them and get it out of order now. All the while spending over $300 billion and thousands of lives. [ QUOTE ] also, a lot of these people who dont want USA to be the world's polieceman say the US should donate food to the hungry. Why is that different from fighting for their liberty? [/ QUOTE ] Seriously? You don't understand the difference between donating food and fighting wars that cause death and destruction? [ QUOTE ] just because you call it "war" and there is violence involved, it automatically becomes something politically correct to protest about? thought.. [/ QUOTE ] You don't think death and destruction is something to protest? Seems kind of sick. [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
#8
12-14-2006, 07:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Lots of hipocrites that are against the war
[ QUOTE ]
Worst arguement ever? So if i dont like 7 up i also cant like Sprite? [/ QUOTE ] No! and in fact, I better never catch you drinking anything carbonated!
|
|
#10
12-14-2006, 09:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Lots of hipocrites that are against the war
[ QUOTE ]
Worst arguement ever? So if i dont like 7 up i also cant like Sprite? [/ QUOTE ] Worst analogy ever? A better one would be, "So if I don't like the electric chair, I also can't like lethal injection?"
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
