I'm damn glad the protestors were ignored... - Page 2

Chilean President™ · April 27, 2003, 03:02

Quote:

you mean a murder of a politician? thats an assasination...

great I'm getting better on english... actually a was doubtful on that word 'cause it was "assasination" so I thought that my subconscious mind made me mistake it.

Q Classic · April 27, 2003, 03:05

it's a valid word. even funnier, it's spelled:
ass•ass•ination.

from oed, the etymology:

Quote:

a. F. assassin, or ad. It. assassino: cf. also Pr. assassin, Pg. assassino, Sp. asesino, med.L. assassnus (OF. forms were assacin, asescin, asisim, hasisin, hassissin, haussasin, etc.; med.L. (pl.) assessini, ascisini, etc.), ad. Arab. ashshshn and ashshiyyn, pl. of ashshsh and ashshiyy, lit. ‘a hashish-eater, one addicted to hashish,’ both forms being applied in Arabic to the Ismli sectarians, who used to intoxicate themselves with hashish or hemp, when preparing to dispatch some king or public man. The OF. variants, (pl.) assacis, hassisis, haississis, med.L. assasi, haussasi, med.Gr. , point to the Arabic singular, but the form finally established in the European languages arises from the Arab. plural, as in Bedouin; cf. also It. cherubino, serafino, F. and earlier Eng. cherubin, seraphin (sing.). Naturally the plural was first in use, in the historical sense, and occurred in Eng. in the Lat. or It. form before assassin was naturalized: the latter was still accented assassin by Oldham in 1679.

Dis · April 27, 2003, 03:07

war is bad. mmmkay

Q Classic · April 27, 2003, 03:07

anyway, yes, albert, it was good that the voice of the minority did not triumph over the voice of the majority.

i honestly believe, however, that the voice of the undecided or the voice of the disinterested (on this particular matter) comprised a far larger group than we're given credit for.

so long as the tyranny of the majority is avoided, this entire government thing seems to be working fine.

Dis · April 27, 2003, 03:14

There are some interesting points in this thread.

First of all the minority still believe they are the majority.

And secodn the minority that does not believe this says the majority are ill-informed and not smart enough to have an opinion- therefore they don't count.

I am pleased by the outcome for several reasons. For far too long the minority groups have been dictating public policy. It was nice to see the majority get some respect for a change.

Frozzy · April 27, 2003, 05:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
There are some interesting points in this thread.

First of all the minority still believe they are the majority.

And secodn the minority that does not believe this says the majority are ill-informed and not smart enough to have an opinion- therefore they don't count.

I am pleased by the outcome for several reasons. For far too long the minority groups have been dictating public policy. It was nice to see the majority get some respect for a change.

Very well said Dissident.

Bugs ****ing Bunny · April 27, 2003, 05:19

How does that leave Britain's position? For some time in the build-up to the war it looked like the anti-war opinions were the majority.

Gangerolf · April 27, 2003, 07:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

they just mentioned him on an SNL from the late 80's! who was he?

IIRC, he was head of KGB in the 80s.

I'm not so sure about that... He was foreign minister of the USSR though.

Alexander's Horse · April 27, 2003, 08:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Albert Speer
72% of americans were in favour of the war...

Probably the same 72% of Americans who couldn't find Iraq on a map.

Urban Ranger · April 27, 2003, 09:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Frozzy
I think that's bullshit. I've always been for the war, I don't think it was wrong. It got rid of a ruthless dictator who murdered and tortured his own people. Please explain why we shouldn't have freed a country of an evil despot?

It is wrong because a country holds no jurisdiction over another country. The only body has this power is the UN.

SlowwHand · April 27, 2003, 09:44

AH, you're thinking of those ignorantass Aussies.

No wait. That's you. Never mind.

Urban Ranger · April 27, 2003, 09:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
And secodn the minority that does not believe this says the majority are ill-informed and not smart enough to have an opinion- therefore they don't count.q

Funny enough, this is exactly what the pro-war camp had been touting wrt to the anti-war movement. You cannot have it both ways.

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
I am pleased by the outcome for several reasons. For far too long the minority groups have been dictating public policy. It was nice to see the majority get some respect for a change.

What makes you think that it has been changed? First of all, support of this invasion went up after it had started, polls on the war right before it started ran extremely close. Secondly, where are all those NBC weapons?

SlowwHand · April 27, 2003, 09:49

Protestors should have been, and REALLY should be now, embarrased.

They were wrong, and should be big enough to just admit it.

Alexander's Horse · April 27, 2003, 09:53

Not at all. I still oppose the war.

Spiffor · April 27, 2003, 09:58

Same here. The military success doesn't mean the 'war' has ended (I mean, the military operations and their consequences). I might change my mind in 10 years, if Iraq has become an happier place by then, and if the hatred from the Arab world towards the US and the west has abated.

I admit I am relieved by the limited losses in the battle of Baghdad though

Giancarlo · April 27, 2003, 10:01

I always bring up a point to the crazy, wrong and loud peacenik protester: "You have a right to protest, you always had this right. You have the right to speak your voice.. but let me ask you... Did the people under Saddam Hussein have this right?"

That leaves a lot of stunned faces in anti-war people in my school. I also say I don't love war, but with Hussein it was unavoidable.

SlowwHand · April 27, 2003, 10:03

And AH and Spiffor illustrate to perfection the ignorance in the minds of the protestors.

There were beau coup reasons, and all are rejected as "unfair".

Laughable, if it weren't so sad.

Spiffor · April 27, 2003, 10:06

I admit you are an expert when it comes to diagnosing ignorance Sloww.

reds4ever · April 27, 2003, 10:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Fez
I always bring up a point to the crazy, wrong and loud peacenik protester: "You have a right to protest, you always had this right. You have the right to speak your voice.. but let me ask you... Did the people under Saddam Hussein have this right?"

That leaves a lot of stunned faces in anti-war people in my school. I also say I don't love war, but with Hussein it was unavoidable.

I believe Iraqis are protesting in Baghdad at the moment...?

Why was war with Hussien unavoidable? there are plenty of other dictators with poor human rights records that the US HAS managed to avoid war with.

Alexander's Horse · April 27, 2003, 10:11

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
And AH and Spiffor illustrate to perfection the ignorance in the minds of the protestors.

There were beau coup reasons, and all are rejected as "unfair".

Laughable, if it weren't so sad.

When you understand the concept of just casus belli, let's talk again.

SlowwHand · April 27, 2003, 10:14

When you understand Hussein didn't do a damn thing he's been supposed to for 12 years, murdered 1000's following the Gulf War, and on and on; let's talk again.

In other words, I don't expect to hear a peep from you.

Alexander's Horse · April 27, 2003, 10:16

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
When you understand Hussein didn't do a damn thing he's been supposed to for 12 years, murdered 1000's following the Gulf War, and on and on; let's talk again.

In other words, I don't expect to hear a peep from you.

You mean like countless other US supported dictatorships around the world?

Urban Ranger · April 27, 2003, 10:54

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
There were beau coup reasons, and all are rejected as "unfair".

Not rejected. Refuted.

chequita guevara · April 27, 2003, 12:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

they just mentioned him on an SNL from the late 80's! who was he?

IIRC, he was head of KGB in the 80s. He is the President of Georgia now, as CP said.

He was Foreign Minister of the USSR.

chequita guevara · April 27, 2003, 12:39

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Protestors should have been, and REALLY should be now, embarrased.

They were wrong, and should be big enough to just admit it.

Why should we be embarressed? Few of our reasons for opposing the war have been disproven, and none of my reasons were disproven. On the other hand, some of our warnings about what would happened are coming true.

Of course, those who supported the war from the begining have had to change their reasons for supporting the war. Since they haven't managed to find WMDs yet (with the caveat that they've found some pretty strong evidence in the last couple of days which still remain to be tested), and there's no evidence that Iraq was giving active support to anti-American terrorists, they now say, "See the smiling people," while ignoring the mounting protests, the surge in power of the Iraqi Ayatollahs, the mass looting and destruction of Iraq, and the Iraqi dead and wounded.

We weren't wrong just because you won. Might doesn't make right.

Speer, the majority of people were opposed to the war from the begining, and it was only when it became clear that war was inevitable because of our bellicose President that the numbers began to change.

Sava · April 27, 2003, 12:39

Revolutions usually succeed when the warning signs are ignored.

Sava · April 27, 2003, 12:44

So far, I don't think any of the anti-war reasons have been disproven. And I don't think any of the anti-war people thought the war wouldn't succeed (at least those of us not wearing aluminum hats). It's the "peace" that I'm worried about. Sure, I might mock the results of the war, but I'm fearful of them. Iraq is turning into an Islamist state. And that's worse than Saddam. Saddam just wanted his own little country. He wanted to build palaces and surround himself with beautiful things. He was predictable. And he didn't want to sacrifice his life for his beliefs. But Islamic fundamentalists want America, Israel, and anyone else who isn't Muslim, dead. And they don't mind blowing themselves up to get their way. And frankly, any course of action that puts them in control, or gives them more opprotunity or more rhetoric to recruit people is bad. It's a shame that America hasn't learned anything from 9-11.

SlowwHand · April 27, 2003, 12:50

Of course you don't.
One has to pay SOME attention, at least.

chequita guevara · April 27, 2003, 12:55

What do you call Republicans who pay attention? Democrats!

Sava · April 27, 2003, 12:59

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
What do you call Republicans who pay attention? Democrats!

Actually, there are two kinds of Republicans. The ones that pay attention and are informed are the ones benefitting from the immoral policies. And then everyone else who is fooled into thinking the policies are good.