an old one but a goodie - dear warmonger and war supporter why won't you go to iraq?

I never said you were against the people fighting.

I take it you mean governments? If so, fair enough.
So, why are you dragging other people into your ludicrous idea?

 

Because in a democratic society, the government is supposed to represent the will of the people.

When the government goes bad, you lay the blame at THEIR feet. The citizens. They were supposed to be keeping watch and they failed to do so.

Our government is now on the loose in the world, and quite frankly nobody feels like doing much to contain it. As such, it should come as no surprise we have people who are trying to destroy us before we destroy them.

Its not until the action arrives on US soil that people will "get it".

Too late then.


x

 

Guess I missed this response:

Are the Israeli's footing the bill for it's deployment? And sorry but your link doesn't work.

 

You are talking about a completely different point here.
I thought we were talking about you wishing to send everybody that supports the war, over to fight.
I attempted to clarify if you actually did mean EVERYBODY who supports the war.
If so, then you are talking about many different countries, not only your own. I hoped you just meant your government.
But you have not really clarified your point.

"no surprise we have people who are trying to destroy us before we destroy them"

On the point you raise here, 'they' have an ideologically slanted agenda.
It really does not have anything to do with what America may or may not be doing.
As Islamic terrorist attacks are indiscriminate.
So, if you are actually right, they are fucking hypocrites.

 

When the Bush, Kristol, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Wolfowitz and Cheney, et al descendants put on any uniform I might consider talking to my relatives about joining.

 

As I just stated on another thread, radical islam is a response to radical zionism. In the same way hippies were a response to clean-cut, white bread America.

The west is under zionist influence. The people in the ME know this and are afraid of us for that very reason. They're trying to protect themselves before they no longer have that ability.

We should all be tired of radicals in our government telling us what to do.

But because of the zionist controlled mass media in the US, few citizens here have ever heard the "other" side of the story.

It's all the fault of radical Islam. I have yet to see the evening news say anything about radical zionism.

The ROOT of the problem.



x

 

Well why don't you keep it in that thread and see if we can keep on topic.
Is your idea so stupid you have know abandoned it?
I'd happily respond to this point in the other thread, but I'd like to actually have your initial point clarified. Then we can move on if you like.

It will only take one line.

 

Why would they have to foot the bill for OUR operations?

Link still works for me.

 

Sorta, "they" want to send pretty much everyone(but themselves).
Anyone who supports the troops(in any way).
Anyone who is " well acquainted" with the situation(anyone who provides facts instead of hearsay)
Anyone who thinks Saddam may have been a bad guy, and may have been responsible for his OWN actions.
Anyone who thinks Iran may have intentions other than peaceful nuclear power.
The list goes on and on,

Lets not forget what "they" have planned for you when you get back , "they" want you (tried for treason).

Sad group indeed.

 

Slacktivism,

Slacktivism (sometimes slactivism) is a portmanteau formed out of the words slacker and activism. It is a pejorative term that describes taking painless "feel-good" measures in support of an issue or social cause that have little or no practical effect other than to make the person doing it feel satisfaction. A person that engages in such activity is called a slacktivist.

We can't claim credit for having coined this term, nor do we know its actual origin, but we love it nonetheless. Slacktivism is the search for the ultimate feel-good that derives from having come to society's rescue without actually getting one's hands dirty, volunteering any of one's time, or opening one's wallet. It's slacktivism that prompts us to forward appeals for business cards on behalf of a dying child intent upon having his name recorded in the Guinness World Book of Records or exhortations to others to continue circulating a particular e-mail because some big company has supposedly promised that every forward will generate monies for the care of a languishing tot. Likewise, it's slacktivism that prompts us to want to join a boycott of designated gas companies or eschew buying gasoline on a particular day rather than reduce our personal consumption of fossil fuels by driving less and taking the bus more often. Slacktivism comes in many forms, but its defining characteristic is its central theme of doing good with little or no effort on the part of the person inspired to participate, through the mechanisms of forwarding, exhorting, collecting, or e-signing.


Sound like anyone you know?

 

No comment.

 

Does that include little black orphans, in Africa, who have no idea what is going on in the world.

The possibly reason for deployment: Oh!, what the hell, why not.

 

Don't be skeered!

 

I do not have enough room in this post, to accurately say what I want to say. I think i'll leave it at that, thanks.

 

i have no intention of trying to offend anyone with this post! but i find it curius to see that words such as I, you,them,us, are used so often! but yet in the last few posts they have been put in some context! my question is do any of "you" understand these words?
I am an induviduale, "I" can include anyone "I" want in "my" group, and hence call them "WE" at the same time under different cercumstances I could call them "THEM" and seperate "US" there was a good book on the subject that i read a long time ago if i remember correctlly it was called the politics of experience, by rd lang?
what im getting at is when "WE" use the word "WE",or"THEM",or "US" who are "WE" refering to???

 

I think we know who they are even if I don't want to talk about them.

 

Don't be course with me, kid.

I had obligations to people yesterday and wasn't able to get back. While I enjoy posting here, I preferred the company of the preteen girls I was teaching bicycle safety to.

The US government is not the freestanding entity that you think it is.

It's part of a "New World Order". England is just as neck deep in it as we are.
People who supported this war were socially engineered to do so. When you control most of the western world's media, its not that hard to make people dance to whatever tune you want to play. My point is these people will only be woken up by sending them, or threaten to send them into the war they seem to support. (This is why the draft has been avoided) It WOULD turn the opinion on the war.

The NWO is unfolding all across the world, and the people who are doing it represent many nationalities.

Israel and the US are the major players because they represent the head and fist of this movement.

I suggest you read up on the New World Order. They're busy whacking a hornet's nest called Iran, and this may very well trigger their "final solution". A world war that seeks to wipe out any opposition to a one world government.



x

 

That opposition, is Islam.


x

 

It's not Islam !


If I remember right

This whole war thing started when planes hit the twin towers and the other targets.
Those thugs/murderers mostly came from Saudi Arabia, just like Bin Laden.

That's the only place that should have been attacked.

ALL the rest is lies and bull$hit.

The United States is harboring a war criminal - Bush

 

I was not attempting to be "course".
I was just frustrated you had responded, twice, to a completely different point. It was like, mmm how can I fit a conspiracy into this one.
When I was just asking why they should go over there.
Now you have explained, so, thank you.

In the UK, I'd say out of the national newspapers, 50/60% did not "support the war".
Those that did, are now desperately digging themselves out of the whole they dug themselves into.
So I don't agree the media socially engineered the public.
If anything they reflected the opinion of their readers.
Why do these people need to "wake up".
Don't you think that is a little patronising?
If your answer to altering somebody's mind, is to send them to the issue you disagree with them on, where would it all end?

I have read up on it a bit.

I'll find the thread in a while.

Edit:

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=308245&page=6