The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Yup, after reading through a few posts on here and seeing how many people take my stance of staying away from the life forums, I wanted to do this topic.
Yesterday I watched Kofi Annan, on Sky, answer questions about the whole Iraq situation. One thing that stood out more than ever, to me, was that this was a guy who actually did want so see a true United Nations. To quote; "The council acts best when it is united."
It's right, but not the case we are seeing right now. It is, as you all know, divided into pro, anti, and "what do we get if we support you" groups of nations. America is essentially threatening the withdrawal and denial of aid to several nations if they do not get in line with the US stance. To me that is plain wrong because aid is aid, it is something you give to those who need it, and yes, you expect friendship in return maybe, but not an automatic over-ride on a nation's stance on an issue. What happened to political sovereignty ?
To add to this, General Meyes, speaking from the Pentagon, in response to a question about Turkey's refusal to let the US use military bases, said this; "We will open a second front in Northern Iraq with or without Turkey's help."
Excuse me ? What on earth is the point in saying that ? It is simply fuelling the belief that the USA will do whatever it wants and steam roller over everything in its way to do so.
Think back to New Years Eve 1999, the Millennium, the year 2000, a new century, was near. Conflict, on the level we are seeing now, and may well see, was not happening. Iraq was contained, terrorism was a rare occurence outside of the Middle East, Israel and the Palestinians were at a somewhat uneasy halt, there was much talk of alleviating third world debt, in other words the outlook was positive. I, and no doubt many others, thought this was the start of some of the better chapters in history. It wasn't a perfect world by far, but many were giving it a damn good go.
A year and half later it fell apart, around 20 men, and a bunch of guys in a cave, ended the illusion. At the time the response, Operation Enduring Freedom, seemed the right thing to do, in my opinion. Now ? well many Afghani's have a better life for sure, but the root of the problem, the hardcore terrorists and leaders, were long gone. We killed many many fighters who in all realism would never have left Afghanistan. The objective was to get those behind 9/11, and disassemble the infrastructure of Al Queda, and their Taliban supporters, in Afghanistan. To a degree it worked, but many spread around the world.
The USA, UK, and the West in general, have hardened security to counter terrorists, so the terrorists are hitting people outside of those areas. Kenya, Bali, Phillipines, Indonesia - easy targets. We're not really winning, we're displacing.
Originally I believed that George Bush was a good man in the wrong place at the wrong time. But his policies are destroying most hope for any kind of better future for us, the people of Iraq, and anyone else his policies effect. That US ambassador's letter was right, in a way. Everything that America and successive administrations have worked for, the alliances and trusts, is being destroyed overnight.
For what ? The world, and international politics, is ripping itself apart because of a small oil rich nation which has largely been ignored for over ten years. Iraq is, in the face of overwhelming odds, making some slow concessions.
I beleived at one point that concessions like these were always stalling tactics, ploys to spin out time. But, what if this is a case of two different kinds of culture, politics, governments, clashing and not understanding each other ? Do we really want to do this because of misunderstanding ?
The announced strategy today, is another reason for my change of heart. More ordinance than was used in the entire Gulf War, will hit Baghdad in one night on the first day of war. That is, to anyone who knows what kind of weapons will be used, insane. I don't know about shock and awe but it's going to do little to win over Iraqi civilians, even I will admit that that amount of weaponry will kill more innocents than it will targets.
Bush is, I fear, losing sight of the objective - the weapons of mass destruction and Saddam. We know full well that anyone in the Iraqi military who opposes Saddam is dead, along with his family, and anyone else who supports him. We know that the scientists we question cannot give us what we want, and that they endanger themselves and their families if they do. A full on invasion is overkill, because whilst Iraqi soliders are dying, Saddam will be safe, and more than likely flee or hide.
What needs to happen, is for people to back down and admit they are wrong, like I'm doing now. You can carry on saying something for so long that to go back on it seems impossible, a loss of face, but when the stakes are potentially thousands of lives, it has to be done.
Bush needs to back down, and the other countries need to give him the space and support so he can do so and retain some credibility. You may think Bush does not deserve such support, but is is the only way America could back down now. Saddam also needs to back down, give the UN more time and access, and in a perfect world, Saddam would step back, allow free elections - like Iran is suggesting - and let a semblance of democracy begin. Again, America needs to give Iraq space. 250 000 troops is overkill, they'll wipe out the entire Iraqi army but not Saddam. The threat of force has obtained co operation, but it is a a somewhat hard handed way of doing it.
Maybe we don't need war, but neither is containment an option again. It's killing the Iraqi's and doing nothing for the UN's image in the Iraq.
You may have noticed a deviation from my normal tone here, slightly.
Let me make this clear; I believe in America, and the idea of the American dream, and that given the right person America can be an agent of true democracy, freedom and all that entails. In fact given the right people in charge of many countries, and I can offer no idea of who these people would be, except to say they would be "Good" people - however you define them - , this could be a different world.
George Bush is not one of these good men, neither is Saddam, neither is Yassir Arafat, neither is Ariel Sharon. Between them, these four men are destroying any hope of a finer world for all of us, and not just for us - as in the West - but for everyone. War isn't going to make that world because the peace it creates is just an absence of war, not true peace.
Apologies to all who I have belittled, and argued with, but it was what I believed then. I still believe in America - whatever you think that is - but not Bush. In many ways he is changing what America is and stands for, and I am thinking that the UN is now the only organisation, along with people in the US administration, who can stop this before it is too late.
More and more I think that if we attack Iraq, in this way, at this time, we wave goodbye to peace for our, and our childrens, lifetimes, and maybe beyond.
If you read this far, thanks for reading.
Yesterday I watched Kofi Annan, on Sky, answer questions about the whole Iraq situation. One thing that stood out more than ever, to me, was that this was a guy who actually did want so see a true United Nations. To quote; "The council acts best when it is united."
It's right, but not the case we are seeing right now. It is, as you all know, divided into pro, anti, and "what do we get if we support you" groups of nations. America is essentially threatening the withdrawal and denial of aid to several nations if they do not get in line with the US stance. To me that is plain wrong because aid is aid, it is something you give to those who need it, and yes, you expect friendship in return maybe, but not an automatic over-ride on a nation's stance on an issue. What happened to political sovereignty ?
To add to this, General Meyes, speaking from the Pentagon, in response to a question about Turkey's refusal to let the US use military bases, said this; "We will open a second front in Northern Iraq with or without Turkey's help."
Excuse me ? What on earth is the point in saying that ? It is simply fuelling the belief that the USA will do whatever it wants and steam roller over everything in its way to do so.
Think back to New Years Eve 1999, the Millennium, the year 2000, a new century, was near. Conflict, on the level we are seeing now, and may well see, was not happening. Iraq was contained, terrorism was a rare occurence outside of the Middle East, Israel and the Palestinians were at a somewhat uneasy halt, there was much talk of alleviating third world debt, in other words the outlook was positive. I, and no doubt many others, thought this was the start of some of the better chapters in history. It wasn't a perfect world by far, but many were giving it a damn good go.
A year and half later it fell apart, around 20 men, and a bunch of guys in a cave, ended the illusion. At the time the response, Operation Enduring Freedom, seemed the right thing to do, in my opinion. Now ? well many Afghani's have a better life for sure, but the root of the problem, the hardcore terrorists and leaders, were long gone. We killed many many fighters who in all realism would never have left Afghanistan. The objective was to get those behind 9/11, and disassemble the infrastructure of Al Queda, and their Taliban supporters, in Afghanistan. To a degree it worked, but many spread around the world.
The USA, UK, and the West in general, have hardened security to counter terrorists, so the terrorists are hitting people outside of those areas. Kenya, Bali, Phillipines, Indonesia - easy targets. We're not really winning, we're displacing.
Originally I believed that George Bush was a good man in the wrong place at the wrong time. But his policies are destroying most hope for any kind of better future for us, the people of Iraq, and anyone else his policies effect. That US ambassador's letter was right, in a way. Everything that America and successive administrations have worked for, the alliances and trusts, is being destroyed overnight.
For what ? The world, and international politics, is ripping itself apart because of a small oil rich nation which has largely been ignored for over ten years. Iraq is, in the face of overwhelming odds, making some slow concessions.
I beleived at one point that concessions like these were always stalling tactics, ploys to spin out time. But, what if this is a case of two different kinds of culture, politics, governments, clashing and not understanding each other ? Do we really want to do this because of misunderstanding ?
The announced strategy today, is another reason for my change of heart. More ordinance than was used in the entire Gulf War, will hit Baghdad in one night on the first day of war. That is, to anyone who knows what kind of weapons will be used, insane. I don't know about shock and awe but it's going to do little to win over Iraqi civilians, even I will admit that that amount of weaponry will kill more innocents than it will targets.
Bush is, I fear, losing sight of the objective - the weapons of mass destruction and Saddam. We know full well that anyone in the Iraqi military who opposes Saddam is dead, along with his family, and anyone else who supports him. We know that the scientists we question cannot give us what we want, and that they endanger themselves and their families if they do. A full on invasion is overkill, because whilst Iraqi soliders are dying, Saddam will be safe, and more than likely flee or hide.
What needs to happen, is for people to back down and admit they are wrong, like I'm doing now. You can carry on saying something for so long that to go back on it seems impossible, a loss of face, but when the stakes are potentially thousands of lives, it has to be done.
Bush needs to back down, and the other countries need to give him the space and support so he can do so and retain some credibility. You may think Bush does not deserve such support, but is is the only way America could back down now. Saddam also needs to back down, give the UN more time and access, and in a perfect world, Saddam would step back, allow free elections - like Iran is suggesting - and let a semblance of democracy begin. Again, America needs to give Iraq space. 250 000 troops is overkill, they'll wipe out the entire Iraqi army but not Saddam. The threat of force has obtained co operation, but it is a a somewhat hard handed way of doing it.
Maybe we don't need war, but neither is containment an option again. It's killing the Iraqi's and doing nothing for the UN's image in the Iraq.
You may have noticed a deviation from my normal tone here, slightly.
Let me make this clear; I believe in America, and the idea of the American dream, and that given the right person America can be an agent of true democracy, freedom and all that entails. In fact given the right people in charge of many countries, and I can offer no idea of who these people would be, except to say they would be "Good" people - however you define them - , this could be a different world.
George Bush is not one of these good men, neither is Saddam, neither is Yassir Arafat, neither is Ariel Sharon. Between them, these four men are destroying any hope of a finer world for all of us, and not just for us - as in the West - but for everyone. War isn't going to make that world because the peace it creates is just an absence of war, not true peace.
Apologies to all who I have belittled, and argued with, but it was what I believed then. I still believe in America - whatever you think that is - but not Bush. In many ways he is changing what America is and stands for, and I am thinking that the UN is now the only organisation, along with people in the US administration, who can stop this before it is too late.
More and more I think that if we attack Iraq, in this way, at this time, we wave goodbye to peace for our, and our childrens, lifetimes, and maybe beyond.
If you read this far, thanks for reading.
Page:
> >Goatboy wrote;
> >You have gone a complete about face and just said "it's the
> right thing", >yet have offered no explanation how a person
> can suddenly change their >opinion so vociferously.
> >What was it that caused your change?
> >I'm not being sarcastic, I honestly cannot understand how you can
> rabidly >defend the actions of George W Bush, then in the post here
> claim that >you've finally come to a realisation that bombing Iraq
> is not the way >forward....and then switch again to being 100%
> supportive and dismissing >those that oppose again?
> >
> >It makes no sense.
> >And, to me, it indicates an absolute lack of conviction in your
> beliefs.
Well, as I've said, I was more interested in the kinds of replies I got in the first place, though I never imagined certain people (not you) would obsess so much over it. Look back, no one questioned it or anything because you consider your own viewpoints to be so right. I'm not saying mine are right either, but no on is 100% right all the time, every time. I do have 100% conviction in the belief that, by and large, America and it's allies are doing the right thing. Sure, they make mistakes along the way, and bad moves, but they're human. To me, America and it's allies usually act in a way I'd expect every country on earth to react if they were half decent.
I think that in many case, not all, those who oppose actions like Iraq do so because of America, and they don't remember those involved that they claim to be trying to save.
Two weeks or so before the Iraq War began they had a series of speakers, both pro and anti war, at Uni. The most powerful of these was not a professor, a lecturer, an ex diplomat, but an Iraqi woman. She spoke about what she remembered of her life in Iraq before her mother paid money for her and her younger sister to be smuggled out of the Iraq in 1991. Why her mother ? Her father, and 19 year old brother, had spoken out against the local leader and been involved in some kind of protest. Soldiers came one day, took both outside, and shot them through the head before emptying bullets into the corpses. The rest of her family she had been unable to contact since she left Iraq. The UK granted her and her sister asylum, and benefits until she found employment in London. She talked about how she wanted more than anything to see Saddam finally removed, and how those who believe mere words would unseat him had obviously never lived in a country with such a regime. She pointed out that very few people, when she was in Iraq, liked how things were under Saddam but they daren't show it because they knew the consequences. She said; "All those who protest in London, if they were in Baghdad and protesting against those who led this contry then they, and their families, would all be dead or imprisoned." She said those who have freedom should not dictate that others should live in terror because they don't like those who will act. Her response to the person who questioned why the UN should not be allowed to continue diplomacy was similar, that the United Nations could not remove such a regime with diplomacy. She said a lot more, but I'm sure the general gist of what she was saying is clear. Her only criticism was that we had waited 12 years too many. If I ever was anti-war then that alone would have changed my mind. What right do we have to tell a (largely) opressed people that we're just going to let them live in fear because we're squeamish about taking real action, what right do we have to say that all we will threaten those who would murder, kill, and worse, with mere words ?
You could argue we have as much right to do that as we have to invade another country. But when the motives are right for that action then the right to act is strong, especially when the country in question cannot help itself to do so.
> >Say what you will about how I feel about this massacre, but I have
> >remained 100% consistent from day one.
> >Right or wrong, I have my moral standpoint and will defend and
> support >that until I am either arrested for treason or this planet
> wakes up.
Wakes up ? A change in American, and UK foreign policy will not right the world's wrongs or make it a finer world. You want perfection, and that's no bad thing, but we don't really know how we get it, to my mind we're still lacking the certain something that unites everyone and makes us all realise we're on the same side.
If you did not support a war, at all, how else would you suggest Saddam be overthrown and his regime dismantled ? Saddam may not be captured, but he's out of the game and his luck will run out. He has to be lucky evry single second of every day, we just have to get one hit. Same goes for Bin Laden, we don't have him, but we will get him, dead or alive.
And, if war was not a threat, how else would the UN have gained so many pre war concessions from Iraq without 1/4 million allied troops on Iraq's borders ?
And, if Iraq was not involved in WMD, why was the media nicknamed "Dr Germ" in the country ? You don't want her running your healthcare system, thats for sure....
> >You have gone a complete about face and just said "it's the
> right thing", >yet have offered no explanation how a person
> can suddenly change their >opinion so vociferously.
> >What was it that caused your change?
> >I'm not being sarcastic, I honestly cannot understand how you can
> rabidly >defend the actions of George W Bush, then in the post here
> claim that >you've finally come to a realisation that bombing Iraq
> is not the way >forward....and then switch again to being 100%
> supportive and dismissing >those that oppose again?
> >
> >It makes no sense.
> >And, to me, it indicates an absolute lack of conviction in your
> beliefs.
Well, as I've said, I was more interested in the kinds of replies I got in the first place, though I never imagined certain people (not you) would obsess so much over it. Look back, no one questioned it or anything because you consider your own viewpoints to be so right. I'm not saying mine are right either, but no on is 100% right all the time, every time. I do have 100% conviction in the belief that, by and large, America and it's allies are doing the right thing. Sure, they make mistakes along the way, and bad moves, but they're human. To me, America and it's allies usually act in a way I'd expect every country on earth to react if they were half decent.
I think that in many case, not all, those who oppose actions like Iraq do so because of America, and they don't remember those involved that they claim to be trying to save.
Two weeks or so before the Iraq War began they had a series of speakers, both pro and anti war, at Uni. The most powerful of these was not a professor, a lecturer, an ex diplomat, but an Iraqi woman. She spoke about what she remembered of her life in Iraq before her mother paid money for her and her younger sister to be smuggled out of the Iraq in 1991. Why her mother ? Her father, and 19 year old brother, had spoken out against the local leader and been involved in some kind of protest. Soldiers came one day, took both outside, and shot them through the head before emptying bullets into the corpses. The rest of her family she had been unable to contact since she left Iraq. The UK granted her and her sister asylum, and benefits until she found employment in London. She talked about how she wanted more than anything to see Saddam finally removed, and how those who believe mere words would unseat him had obviously never lived in a country with such a regime. She pointed out that very few people, when she was in Iraq, liked how things were under Saddam but they daren't show it because they knew the consequences. She said; "All those who protest in London, if they were in Baghdad and protesting against those who led this contry then they, and their families, would all be dead or imprisoned." She said those who have freedom should not dictate that others should live in terror because they don't like those who will act. Her response to the person who questioned why the UN should not be allowed to continue diplomacy was similar, that the United Nations could not remove such a regime with diplomacy. She said a lot more, but I'm sure the general gist of what she was saying is clear. Her only criticism was that we had waited 12 years too many. If I ever was anti-war then that alone would have changed my mind. What right do we have to tell a (largely) opressed people that we're just going to let them live in fear because we're squeamish about taking real action, what right do we have to say that all we will threaten those who would murder, kill, and worse, with mere words ?
You could argue we have as much right to do that as we have to invade another country. But when the motives are right for that action then the right to act is strong, especially when the country in question cannot help itself to do so.
> >Say what you will about how I feel about this massacre, but I have
> >remained 100% consistent from day one.
> >Right or wrong, I have my moral standpoint and will defend and
> support >that until I am either arrested for treason or this planet
> wakes up.
Wakes up ? A change in American, and UK foreign policy will not right the world's wrongs or make it a finer world. You want perfection, and that's no bad thing, but we don't really know how we get it, to my mind we're still lacking the certain something that unites everyone and makes us all realise we're on the same side.
If you did not support a war, at all, how else would you suggest Saddam be overthrown and his regime dismantled ? Saddam may not be captured, but he's out of the game and his luck will run out. He has to be lucky evry single second of every day, we just have to get one hit. Same goes for Bin Laden, we don't have him, but we will get him, dead or alive.
And, if war was not a threat, how else would the UN have gained so many pre war concessions from Iraq without 1/4 million allied troops on Iraq's borders ?
And, if Iraq was not involved in WMD, why was the media nicknamed "Dr Germ" in the country ? You don't want her running your healthcare system, thats for sure....
Really? Looks like plain english to me. Whats the matter? Too many big words? ;)
To summarise;
1. You said that any idea that meets resistance is a bad one
2. You defined "resistance" as "people opposed to the idea are willing to break the law in order to resist it"
3. Therefore, according to you, there was no resistance to the recent war (we'll ignore the arrests that were made at the various demo's...)
4. However, according to that same logic, there is no resistance to legalising prostitution as those opposed to it's legalisation are not breaking the law.
5. You tried to say it was as it is illegal for example, kerb crawl for prostitutes. However, people using prostitutes are hardly opposed to it's legalisation.
6. Therefore, using your own logic either -
a: the War in Iraq met with resistance and was a bad idea, or
b: Legalising prostitution has not resistance and is not a bad idea
That should be clear enough for you. Of course, if you just plain don't want to answer, then just say. I'd rather like clear confirmation that you're a busted flush when it comes to debating, and that all you're good for is humiliating when I'm in a bad mood.
I'll post this in the Prostitution thread as well. Looking forward to your response...
To summarise;
1. You said that any idea that meets resistance is a bad one
2. You defined "resistance" as "people opposed to the idea are willing to break the law in order to resist it"
3. Therefore, according to you, there was no resistance to the recent war (we'll ignore the arrests that were made at the various demo's...)
4. However, according to that same logic, there is no resistance to legalising prostitution as those opposed to it's legalisation are not breaking the law.
5. You tried to say it was as it is illegal for example, kerb crawl for prostitutes. However, people using prostitutes are hardly opposed to it's legalisation.
6. Therefore, using your own logic either -
a: the War in Iraq met with resistance and was a bad idea, or
b: Legalising prostitution has not resistance and is not a bad idea
That should be clear enough for you. Of course, if you just plain don't want to answer, then just say. I'd rather like clear confirmation that you're a busted flush when it comes to debating, and that all you're good for is humiliating when I'm in a bad mood.
I'll post this in the Prostitution thread as well. Looking forward to your response...
Er, HELLO Light ??
I know where the post is, it's just unintelligible.....
I know where the post is, it's just unintelligible.....
Belldandy wrote:
>
> Light, if you wanna talk about that then go dig the topic up. I can't
> understand what you've posted for all the various ( ) e.t.c. Whatever
> you say isn't going to ever convince me we need to legalise it, same
> goes for drugs.
I know that. I just want you to answer the question I posted below. You've avoided it...ohh, must be at least 4 times now. So come on; answer my question. Tell you what; I'll leave you be altogether on this one, if you can answer the question I've asked. It's only about 2 posts below this one, so you shouldn't have too much trouble finding it...
>
> And Light, what did I tell you about calling me "Sweetheart"
> in public eh ? Tsk tsk.... :P
Yeah well, I thought you might be getting a little insecure about my feelings for you so I thought I'd reiterate them...
>
> Light, if you wanna talk about that then go dig the topic up. I can't
> understand what you've posted for all the various ( ) e.t.c. Whatever
> you say isn't going to ever convince me we need to legalise it, same
> goes for drugs.
I know that. I just want you to answer the question I posted below. You've avoided it...ohh, must be at least 4 times now. So come on; answer my question. Tell you what; I'll leave you be altogether on this one, if you can answer the question I've asked. It's only about 2 posts below this one, so you shouldn't have too much trouble finding it...
>
> And Light, what did I tell you about calling me "Sweetheart"
> in public eh ? Tsk tsk.... :P
Yeah well, I thought you might be getting a little insecure about my feelings for you so I thought I'd reiterate them...
Goatboy wrote:
> I think that's it,havent had time to check back.
>
> I know you said you just wrote it for a reaction but c'mon...
I'll reply to your questions tomorrow then, bit rushed tonight 'cause I've got my dissertation proposal to work on for the end of the week :)
Light, if you wanna talk about that then go dig the topic up. I can't understand what you've posted for all the various ( ) > e.t.c. Whatever you say isn't going to ever convince me we need to legalise it, same goes for drugs.
And Light, what did I tell you about calling me "Sweetheart" in public eh ? Tsk tsk.... :P
> I think that's it,havent had time to check back.
>
> I know you said you just wrote it for a reaction but c'mon...
I'll reply to your questions tomorrow then, bit rushed tonight 'cause I've got my dissertation proposal to work on for the end of the week :)
Light, if you wanna talk about that then go dig the topic up. I can't understand what you've posted for all the various ( ) > e.t.c. Whatever you say isn't going to ever convince me we need to legalise it, same goes for drugs.
And Light, what did I tell you about calling me "Sweetheart" in public eh ? Tsk tsk.... :P
Belldandy wrote:
> Go ahead Light, let's all see you arguing for prostitutes again....
>
> Take a read; http://e-education.uni-muenster.de /boell/Sassen.doc
>
> Kind of says a fair bit about why anyone would want to argue FOR
> prostitution.
Okay, I'll read it and get back to you tomorrow at some point after 5.
In the meantime, I'd like you to comment on the question I posed to you in this very thread that you decided to ignore;
>Anyway, seeing as you're still twisting and turning to try and find ways >in which you can't be demonstrated to be wrong, let us go back to your >definition of "Idea's that meet resistance".
>A long time ago, you said that there was no resistance to the war because >resistance should be defined as "Breaking the law". Leaving aside the >fact that anti-war protesters have in fact been arrested, I asked you how >this could be reconciled with an earlier statement of yours concerning >prostitutions, namely that "Any idea that meets with resistance (in this >case, the legalisation of prostitution) was a bad one". Your (somewhat >muddled) response was that it is already meeting resistance because >prostitution is illegal.
>Now then sweetheart, could you answer me this: The opponents of >prostitution are not the ones breaking the law. It's those who use >prostitutes who are. Therefore, according to your own definition and your >own logic, the legalisation of prostitution is not meeting any >resistance. Is it, therefore, still a bad idea?
> Go ahead Light, let's all see you arguing for prostitutes again....
>
> Take a read; http://e-education.uni-muenster.de /boell/Sassen.doc
>
> Kind of says a fair bit about why anyone would want to argue FOR
> prostitution.
Okay, I'll read it and get back to you tomorrow at some point after 5.
In the meantime, I'd like you to comment on the question I posed to you in this very thread that you decided to ignore;
>Anyway, seeing as you're still twisting and turning to try and find ways >in which you can't be demonstrated to be wrong, let us go back to your >definition of "Idea's that meet resistance".
>A long time ago, you said that there was no resistance to the war because >resistance should be defined as "Breaking the law". Leaving aside the >fact that anti-war protesters have in fact been arrested, I asked you how >this could be reconciled with an earlier statement of yours concerning >prostitutions, namely that "Any idea that meets with resistance (in this >case, the legalisation of prostitution) was a bad one". Your (somewhat >muddled) response was that it is already meeting resistance because >prostitution is illegal.
>Now then sweetheart, could you answer me this: The opponents of >prostitution are not the ones breaking the law. It's those who use >prostitutes who are. Therefore, according to your own definition and your >own logic, the legalisation of prostitution is not meeting any >resistance. Is it, therefore, still a bad idea?
I think that's it,havent had time to check back.
I know you said you just wrote it for a reaction but c'mon...
I know you said you just wrote it for a reaction but c'mon...
Aha, is this it :
>Goatboy wrote;
>You have gone a complete about face and just said "it's the right thing", >yet have offered no explanation how a person can suddenly change their >opinion so vociferously.
>What was it that caused your change?
>I'm not being sarcastic, I honestly cannot understand how you can rabidly >defend the actions of George W Bush, then in the post here claim that >you've finally come to a realisation that bombing Iraq is not the way >forward....and then switch again to being 100% supportive and dismissing >those that oppose again?
>
>It makes no sense.
>And, to me, it indicates an absolute lack of conviction in your beliefs.
>Say what you will about how I feel about this massacre, but I have >remained 100% consistent from day one.
>Right or wrong, I have my moral standpoint and will defend and support >that until I am either arrested for treason or this planet wakes up.
>
>Please explain how you can veer between opinions and beliefs so >drastically with 180 degree changes of mind so easily?
>Nevermind spatting with Light, I'd like you to explain my points above to >me
If someone can say if this is the right thing then I'll reply ? It looks like the thing, but I could be wrong.
>Goatboy wrote;
>You have gone a complete about face and just said "it's the right thing", >yet have offered no explanation how a person can suddenly change their >opinion so vociferously.
>What was it that caused your change?
>I'm not being sarcastic, I honestly cannot understand how you can rabidly >defend the actions of George W Bush, then in the post here claim that >you've finally come to a realisation that bombing Iraq is not the way >forward....and then switch again to being 100% supportive and dismissing >those that oppose again?
>
>It makes no sense.
>And, to me, it indicates an absolute lack of conviction in your beliefs.
>Say what you will about how I feel about this massacre, but I have >remained 100% consistent from day one.
>Right or wrong, I have my moral standpoint and will defend and support >that until I am either arrested for treason or this planet wakes up.
>
>Please explain how you can veer between opinions and beliefs so >drastically with 180 degree changes of mind so easily?
>Nevermind spatting with Light, I'd like you to explain my points above to >me
If someone can say if this is the right thing then I'll reply ? It looks like the thing, but I could be wrong.
Not sure, I'll have a flick through later on.
I've just been all through the thread and I honestly can't find the questions, I can find the bit where you reckon I'm just not answering - apologies for being on holiday - but I can't find them. If I could find them I'd give you an answer ! What page are they supposed to be on ?
Page: