One man's resistance fighter

[Richard III]

I'm with Pontius on the whole business of imminence. If it wasn't so imminent, and if thinking so was such a dangerous misinterpretation of the President and Adminstration's language, then January would have been a good time to correct this "misimpression," not November.

 

[delsully]

Originally posted by imposter


Do you then take the position that Irish separatists have never committed acts of terror?

No, I do not. As unequivocal as I am convinced that the Brits have perpetrated horrific acts against INNOCENT Irishmen time after time for 600 years!

BTW, they are Irish nationalists.

 

[Richard III]

Nobody's arguing with the history, they're arguing about how to try to change it.

 

[Sickman]

Originally posted by rmsharpe


The only reason to fight the U.S. is to reinstall some sort of dictator or one-party system.

Really?
So US always has been supporting the democratic values of all the countries in the world. Well, OK.
See SeleucusNicators points about democratic system in Middle East.
And what is wrong with one-party system?
If the people are happy under it and not threat to anyone?

Originally posted by rmsharpe

No matter how much things may seem complicated, it always runs down to the same basic premise, good and evil. It always has been and it always will be.

I thought ultimate truth had to do with something with logical reasoning and clear thinking but I guess I was wrong.
Let's just eat all moral junk we are given and then tell other people what is right and wrong.
Good and evil are religious terms invented thousand of years ago. It doesn't mean they are the ultimate truth. Unless you are religious of course.

And I must say agree with Pontiuth and Richard about Bush saying "Iraq being immident danger". That was the message, but as we can see from the likes of Berlusconi, people can get away with most absurd things they say. It's all about cover up and people forgiving.

We must just wait and see does Bush bluff go all the way through.

 

[philippe]

bah. for my part they may use the term : puppets for war and destruction to both sides

 

[Kev1916]

Originally posted by Kentonio
[One thing you seem unable to deal with however is the simple fact that loyalist terrorists are just as much terrorists as the IRA and are not doing what they are doing with the support of the British.

_________________


That is an incorrect statement, there has been clear evidence that the British Goverment quite often aided Loyalist Terrorist's.

 

[newfangle]

Originally posted by rmsharpe

No matter how much things may seem complicated, it always runs down to the same basic premise, good and evil. It always has been and it always will be.

Truer words have never been spoken.

 

[Cactus_Jack]

Nothing is more dangerous that a person or nation of people that belives in absolute good and evil. The Nazis believed that ethey where good and everyone else was bad. Also Bin Lardin says we are good and the USA is bad. So in a way he is a mirror image of Bush.

 

[imposter]

Originally posted by SeleucusNicator
The democracies of Western Europe have been allies for the term of their democracies, thus not giving us a chance to see how they would act if there were significant conflicts. It has been a coincidence of history.

I'm of the opinion that it's ~not~ a coincidence of history that there have not been significant conflicts between these nations. Given that all they could do for centuries was try and kill each other, there's got to be some reason that they're not anymore. I think that one of those reasons is that American troops have occupied portions of Europe for almost 60 years now, but I also think that if these nations did not have democratically elected leaders, we would not see this lasting peace.

 

[imposter]

Originally posted by SeleucusNicator
How do you see democracy being possible in the area?

I'm just letting you know that I haven't ignored your question, and you can expect me to post my thoughts on it at a later point, just not at this precise moment.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

Originally posted by imposter

I'm of the opinion that it's ~not~ a coincidence of history that there have not been significant conflicts between these nations. Given that all they could do for centuries was try and kill each other, there's got to be some reason that they're not anymore. I think that one of those reasons is that American troops have occupied portions of Europe for almost 60 years now, but I also think that if these nations did not have democratically elected leaders, we would not see this lasting peace.

They had very good reasons not to attack each other. In WW2 they were allies against the Tripartite powers and after that they were allied with the United States against the Soviet Union. Currently they are part of the emerging EU "alliance", if you can call it that; against what exactly this alliance is remains to be seen.

It has never been in the best interest of one of these nations to attack the other (indeed, since WW2, it has always been the other way around) and no conflict between them has emerged.

I would credit the lasting peace more to the fall of imperialism and the emergence of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union as unifying threats rather than to some magical aspect of democracy.

 

[Kentonio]

Originally posted by bholed

That is an incorrect statement, there has been clear evidence that the British Goverment quite often aided Loyalist Terrorist's.

No, there has been uncertain proof that British Intelligence used the Loyalist terrorists as pawns. 2 points. 1. Its never been properly proved and 2. Even if it had taken place it is staggeringly unlikely that it did so with the complicit knowledge of the British Prime Minister at the time.

The only feasible exception to this may have been using Loyalist terrorists to hit IRA members, which is certainly possible. I wouldnt even be surpised to be quite honest.

Any of the above scenarios however would have occured around 20-30 years ago, certainly not under the present political landscape.

 

[Neomega]

Originally posted by imposter


I'm just letting you know that I haven't ignored your question, and you can expect me to post my thoughts on it at a later point, just not at this precise moment.

Be sure once you have that answer, that it adequately explains why there is no democracy in Kuwait yet. 12 years later, 11 years after so-called pressure was applied on the emir for democratic reform.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

There's capitalism; that's all that matters.