A question for those who support the Iraq invasion

Withoutlove · #41 03-24-2003, 09:05 PM

Eric I believe you posted this:
don't tell me that you are nice against you POW, thats a lie

well I have to say , They had interviews from The GULF war (THE POW's) and quite a few them were extremly happy to surrender to THE US..... The guy's even stated "THEY KNEW THEY wern't gonna get treated badly" so they gave up.... The guy even said The troops gave him dinner ,lunch, and breakfast, along with water.....
they also said The US has been very nice to them...so nice that they moved to the US... and dread the day They have to go back to SADDAAM...they even said , They 'd rather KILL THEMSELVES before they step back on IRAQI soil while Sadaam runs it..... ummmmmmmm ok what does that tell ya......

your reply again:have seen those pictures of the talibans you have on cuba! you have them in cages, with muzzle and that kinds of things!

The TALIBAN is a diff story.... The Taliban is controlled by another a@@hole who's sick in the brain.... Now I didn't see the pictures your talking about.... The ones I see, They have a great jail set up....
I don't know how they are being treated ..... so I can't comment on it...

Mousebounce · #42 03-24-2003, 09:09 PM

Quote:

your reply again:have seen those pictures of the talibans you have on cuba! you have them in cages, with muzzle and that kinds of things!

Act like an animal, get treated like one.

Sorry, I know you will respond, "Well the USA is the same." I have already heard that too many times.

The Taliban are a different story. At least in my book.

letitrock · #43 03-24-2003, 09:12 PM

there are cultural differences... north US/South US/South America/Europe/Middle-East/East

but what shouldn't change in definition across those borders are humanitarian arguments...

however imperfect our systems we generally don't have systems tolerating mass terror and violence (even if we get that a little)

however imperfect Brit/US it is not just a case of instilling our "Western" values on different societies

i firmly believe it is a largely economic war (and i'm not restricting this to oil - and personally think it will be used for Iraq considering the scrutiny the US will come under if it is not)

letitrock · #44 03-24-2003, 09:15 PM

my only problem is the degree of homogeneity that is occuring in the 21st century...

cultural diversity is becoming a thing of the past

Mike McRock · #45 03-24-2003, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by letitrock

Quote:

The last lines of the book for Christ sake.... something like, it was when the bullet hit the back of my head that I realised. "I loved Big Brother"....

he's been institutionalised... tell me in practice how individualism however small cannot exist in a highly autocracised society...

We're talking about the theme's of the novel, and that is that a govenment can controle your thoughts, as it can break you down. I never said that I thought Orwell was trying to suggest individualism woudl be wiped out, just that it woudl be supressed, and destroyed. I'm also awear that you could also read 1984 differently, looking at the ideas of doublething, and existance, however, my interpretation is a valid one, and is deffinately one of the

Quote:

He's using his imagination to image how a state like the USSR, or Nazi Germany (although less so), will develop, and progress. Of cource, I didn't say that we will have a state the same as in 1984, but that sort of supression

Quote:

Originally Posted by letitrock

You should probably read up on Orwell's life... he was dismayed by how the Soviets had manipulated Marxist doctrine and were no longer ideologically Marxists...

I'm awear of this, he faught in Spain against fascism. However, this doesn't provide all the answers to the novel. The novel is an exageration of the state, about how it can controle it's people, through propaganda, and political police. I'm not sure quite what you're trying to say here. He didn't like the Soviet state.... well yes, there are parallels there, which sertainly suggest this... this is what I was saying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by letitrock

a book is just a book - it doesn't hold all the answers

I never said it did, don't be so ****in arrogant. It's an opinion, an interpretation, even a premonition, or prediction..... So what is history then, just the past? You're a historian, if you felt that history was just some pointless bits of evidence, which holds no understanding of what is happening now, the way people thought e.t.c. why do you do it?

I never said it holds all the answers, but it does hold a suggestion. The work is there, to be interpreted.

{_Warrior_} · #46 03-24-2003, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jovi2003

Quote:

Originally Posted by {_Warrior_}

US has it too, and believe me, they are more dangerous than the poor Iraq

You're stupid.

Stupid me ? look at your mirror

letitrock · #47 03-24-2003, 09:27 PM

Quote:

. I never said that I thought Orwell was trying to suggest individualism woudl be wiped out, just that it woudl be supressed, and destroyed.

how are they different?

Quote:

We're talking about the theme's of the novel

themes are multidimensional - themes are also often what a critic or an author of secondary literature brings to a novel in order to try to simplify its plot

Quote:

However, this doesn't provide all the answers to the novel

that was my point in the last 3 posts

Quote:

I never said it did, don't be so **** arrogant

read a lot of secondary literature and history on it if you want to be so arrogant yourself

Quote:

You're a historian

i'm not a historian, i'm a student of history - you are not a literarist

Quote:

So what is history then, just the past?

in a simplified way yes

Quote:

why do you do it?

because i had a fight with my english teacher Mr Hirst and also Mr Sweetman and didn't want mr H to think i was doing his subject when it came to choosing the subjects

Quote:

I never said it holds all the answers, but it does hold a suggestion. The work is there, to be interpreted.

Thank You

going back to the point this is what you ignored:

america joined for other reasons than the 6 you listed... namely:

U-boats attacked US shipping to Britain of food/weapons - and therefore a loss of trade and of finance/capital

Pearl Harbour - a dent to US pride

Politics of Roosevelt

opportunities for US businessmen, bankers, industrialists

full employment

economic recovery (linked to latter)

letitrock · #48 03-24-2003, 09:34 PM

Quote:

letitrock wrote:

a book is just a book - it doesn't hold all the answers

I never said it did, don't be so **** arrogant. It's an opinion, an interpretation, even a premonition, or prediction..... So what is history then, just the past? You're a historian, if you felt that history was just some pointless bits of evidence, which holds no understanding of what is happening now, the way people thought e.t.c. why do you do it?

since when are the only things written in books just English literature

what do you think history is recorded in besides memories and more recently tv/film etc

Quote:

a book is just a book - it doesn't hold all the answers

if this is how you define arrogane then ...

letitrock · #49 03-24-2003, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by {_Warrior_}

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jovi2003

Quote:

Originally Posted by {_Warrior_}

US has it too, and believe me, they are more dangerous than the poor Iraq

You're stupid.

Stupid me ? look at your mirror

this has gone completely off track

it has been obscured by pointless posts... let me bring things to speed in the next post and get back on track

letitrock · #50 03-24-2003, 09:39 PM

Mike wrote:

Quote:

Simon wrote:

What do you think will come after the war is over? Peace and freedom for the iraquis? No, it'll be civil war. War causes terrorism. You cannot get peace with bombs. Ah, my head is a chaos right now, I can't get all my thoughts into words and order. Not this time.

What the allies hadn't faught against America. Germany wasn't a direct threat to Britain, and America in 39, but they still went to war to fight because a) Germany was only getting stronger, if they left him he'd possiably get too strong, and they woudlnt' be able to stand a chance in a war. b) because he was killing millions of people, and there was a morral problem....

If we hadn't have faught Germany in 39 then I don't think we would have achieved world peace, more likely we'd read about Jewish people, black people, disabled people, gay people e.t.c. in books, and would have a system moving towards the society depicted in 1984, i.e political police controling what peole said, and thought. Sometimes war is nessesary, and has to be faught....

I'm against THIS war, as I don't think it's absolutely nessesary, I think there are other avenues which haven't been explored, and I thus think this war is wrong.

Letitrock wrote:

Quote:

america joined for other reasons than the 6 you listed... namely:

U-boats attacked US shipping to Britain of food/weapons - and therefore a loss of trade and of finance/capital

Pearl Harbour - a dent to US pride

Politics of Roosevelt

opportunities for US businessmen, bankers, industrialists

full employment

economic recovery (linked to latter)

A question for those who support the Iraq invasion

NBJ - Everything Else