Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Pablo, Feb 20, 2003.
I have a dial-up connection. Bet it was interesting.
As amusing as parts of that video were I don't think it's good for much else besides entertainment.
Poorly done and as far as the pseudo documentary style - irresponsible. One cannot simple ask "How do we solve the problem?" without clarifying what the "problem" is. Nuclear weapons? Al-qaeda? Chemical weapons? Tyranny? The people on the street need a foundation to have a discussion.
The question he takes so much time with "Why would we want to occupy the oilfields now when we didn't last time?" can be answered by the simple fact that the region exists today dramatically different and potentially unstable. The US is worried the anti-democratic regimes we have supported and propped up will soon fall to Islamic fundamentalism. Our own regime is worried about the next 40 years. How do we keep our gas guzzlers full?
So, instead of taking intelligent and simple measures to wean our dependence on the crude stuff (like fuel efficiency, alternative energies) we are being led with 19th century thinking to solve 21st century problems.
so we have one psuedo-intellectual making fun of average americans, I wonder how many people he cut out that actually knew what they were talking about. There are plenty of pro-war supporters that are just as ignorant.
Where is "Pablo" on this? Does he have anything worthwhile to actually contribute?
Is there a question on the table?
You voiced your opinion on the matter...that's fine. What's your purpose on calling me out?
The bottom line is, regardless of which side of the argument you are on, the people in that video represent about 95% of the anti-war movement.
really so the few people in that video represent not only all of the anti-war protestors here in the states but also everyone else against the war in the U.N.?
"Only Australia and Japan supported Washington and London in seeking a quick new Security Council resolution to confront Iraq. Peru and Argentina mentioned the possible use of force if Iraq doesn't comply.
But the Non-Aligned Movement, representing 115 mainly developing countries, the Arab League, the European Union and other Asian, African and Latin American nations spoke out against a rush to war. "
that's a pretty broad generalization you have made.
much like the one lady who resorted to name calling when she couldn't come up with a logical answer to his questions, many of the people who have protested the war in my local area, although verbose, fail to back up their own claims.
they make such profound statements as "bush=hitler, no war" etc. yet they have no better plan of action. i've often wondered what they would do if they were in office? would they have the balls to stand up and fight when neccesary?
While this cross section of anti-war activists may have come to the discussion table without getting their facts straight, the bottom line is that they haven't been convinced that war IS neccesary.
While the signs and chants tend to be based on intelligent shock-value rather than meaningful content, the real message is that a huge number of people have yet to be convinced that military action needs to be taken.
It may be hard for them to arrive at a solution for this issue, but its pretty easy for them to say "I don't want to die for it."
I think that is an accurate representation of the anti-war movement.
statistics, huh? how did you arrive at this arbitrary number?
This video seemed harmless, but after reading some of the articles on his site, he clearly had an agenda to make the movement look bad. Was this michael moore's conservative (fraternal) twin? In response to his question, why didn't we keep the oil fields after the first war? the kuwaite oil fields are controlled by a government friendly to the us. that'd be like annexing canada so that we can claim the kids in the hall were ours.