Forum Closed
The forum is now to new posts. All the historical content is still available to browse.
if you are looking for musicians to play with, please view the Bands Seeking Musicians list, or use the Musicians Directory
You can use our pages on social media to connect:
Interesting Article
| Message Board > General Chitchat > Interesting Article |
| more war | This article by Arundhati Roy appeared in the 2 April "The Guardian" > > >http://www.guardian.co.uk > >Mesopotamia. Babylon. The Tigris and Euphrates > >Arundhati Roy > >Wednesday April 2, 2003 > >The Guardian > >On the steel torsos of their missiles, adolescent American soldiers >scrawl colourful messages in childish handwriting: For Saddam, from >the Fat Boy Posse. A building goes down. A marketplace. A home. A >girl who loves a boy. A child who only ever wanted to play with his >older brother's marbles. > >On March 21, the day after American and British troops began their >illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, an "embedded" CNN >correspondent interviewed an American soldier. "I wanna get in there >and get my nose dirty," Private AJ said. "I wanna take revenge for >9/11." > >To be fair to the correspondent, even though he was "embedded" he did >sort of weakly suggest that so far there was no real evidence that >linked the Iraqi government to the September 11 attacks. Private AJ >stuck his teenage tongue out all the way down to the end of his chin. >"Yeah, well that stuff's way over my head," he said. > >According to a New York Times/CBS News survey, 42 per cent of the >American public believes that Saddam Hussein is directly responsible >for the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre and the >Pentagon. And an ABC news poll says that 55 per cent of Americans >believe that Saddam Hussein directly supports al-Qaida. What >percentage of America's armed forces believe these fabrications is >anybody's guess. > >It is unlikely that British and American troops fighting in Iraq are >aware that their governments supported Saddam Hussein both >politically >and financially through his worst excesses. > >But why should poor AJ and his fellow soldiers be burdened with these >details? It does not matter any more, does it? Hundreds of thousands >of men, tanks, ships, choppers, bombs, ammunition, gas masks, >high-protein food, whole aircrafts ferrying toilet paper, insect >repellent, vitamins and bottled mineral water, are on the move. The >phenomenal logistics of Operation Iraqi Freedom make it a universe >unto itself. It doesn't need to justify its existence any more. It >exists. It is. > >President George W Bush, commander in chief of the US army, navy, >airforce and marines has issued clear instructions: "Iraq. Will. Be. >Liberated." (Perhaps he means that even if Iraqi people's bodies are >killed, their souls will be liberated.) American and British citizens >owe it to the supreme commander to forsake thought and rally behind >their troops. Their countries are at war. And what a war it is. > >After using the "good offices" of UN diplomacy (economic sanctions >and weapons inspections) to ensure that Iraq was brought to its >knees, its people starved, half a million of its children killed, its >infrastructure severely damaged, after making sure that most of its >weapons have been destroyed, in an act of cowardice that must surely >be unrivalled in history, the "Allies"/"Coalition of the Willing" >(better known as the Coalition of the Bullied and Bought) - >sent in an invading army! > >Operation Iraqi Freedom? I don't think so. It's more like Operation >Let's Run a Race, but First Let Me Break Your Knees. > >So far the Iraqi army, with its hungry, ill-equipped soldiers, its >old guns and ageing tanks, has somehow managed to temporarily >confound and occasionally even outmanoeuvre the "Allies". Faced with >the richest, best-equipped, most powerful armed forces the world has >ever seen, Iraq has shown spectacular courage and has even managed to >put up what actually amounts to a defence. A defence which the >Bush/Blair Pair have immediately denounced as deceitful and cowardly. >(But then deceit is an old tradition with us natives. When we are >invaded/ colonised/occupied and stripped of all dignity, we turn to >guile and opportunism.) > >Even allowing for the fact that Iraq and the "Allies" are at war, the >extent to which the "Allies" and their media cohorts are prepared to >go is astounding to the point of being counterproductive to their own >objectives. > >When Saddam Hussein appeared on national TV to address the Iraqi >people after the failure of the most elaborate assassination attempt >in history - "Operation Decapitation" - we had Geoff Hoon, the >British defence secretary, deriding him for not having the courage to >stand up and be killed, calling him a coward who hides in trenches. >We then had a flurry of Coalition speculation - Was it really Saddam, >was it his double? Or was it Osama with a shave? Was it pre-recorded? >Was it a speech? Was it black magic? Will it turn into a pumpkin if >we really, really want it to? > >After dropping not hundreds, but thousands of bombs on Baghdad, when >a marketplace was mistakenly blown up and civilians killed - a US >army spokesman implied that the Iraqis were blowing themselves up! >"They're using very old stock. Their missiles go up and come down." > >If so, may we ask how this squares with the accusation that the Iraqi >regime is a paid-up member of the Axis of Evil and a threat to world >peace? > >When the Arab TV station al-Jazeera shows civilian casualties it's >denounced as "emotive" Arab propaganda aimed at orchestrating >hostility towards the "Allies", as though Iraqis are dying only in >order to make the "Allies" look bad. Even French television has come >in for some stick for similar reasons. But the awed, breathless >footage of aircraft carriers, stealth bombers and cruise missiles >arcing across the desert sky on American and British TV is described >as the "terrible beauty" of war. > >When invading American soldiers (from the army "that's only here to >help") are taken prisoner and shown on Iraqi TV, George Bush says it >violates the Geneva convention and "exposes the evil at the heart of >the regime". But it is entirely acceptable for US television stations >to show the hundreds of prisoners being held by the US government in >Guantanamo Bay, kneeling on the ground with their hands tied behind >their backs, blinded with opaque goggles and with earphones clamped >on their ears, to ensure complete visual and aural deprivation. When >questioned about the treatment of these prisoners, US Government >officials don't deny that they're being being ill-treated. They deny >that they're "prisoners of war"! They call them "unlawful >combatants", implying that their ill-treatment is legitimate! (So >what's the party line on the massacre of prisoners in Mazar-e-Sharif, >Afghanistan? Forgive and forget? And what of the prisoner tortured to >death by the special forces at the Bagram airforce base? Doctors have >formally called it homicide.) > >When the "Allies" bombed the Iraqi television station (also, >incidentally, a contravention of the Geneva convention), there was >vulgar jubilation in the American media. In fact Fox TV had been >lobbying for the attack for a while. It was seen as a righteous blow >against Arab propaganda. But mainstream American and British TV >continue to advertise themselves as "balanced" when their propaganda >has achieved hallucinatory levels. > >Why should propaganda be the exclusive preserve of the western media? >Just because they do it better? Western journalists "embedded" with >troops are given the status of heroes reporting from the frontlines >of war. Non-"embedded" journalists (such as the BBC's Rageh Omaar, >reporting from besieged and bombed Baghdad, witnessing, and clearly >affected by the sight of bodies of burned children and wounded >people) are undermined even before they begin their reportage: "We >have to tell you that he is being monitored by the Iraqi >authorities." > >Increasingly, on British and American TV, Iraqi soldiers are being >referred to as "militia" (ie: rabble). One BBC correspondent >portentously referred to them as "quasi-terrorists". Iraqi defence is >"resistance" or worse still, "pockets of resistance", Iraqi military >strategy is deceit. (The US government bugging the phone lines of UN >security council delegates, reported by the Observer, is hard-headed >pragmatism.) Clearly for the "Allies", the only morally acceptable >strategy the Iraqi army can pursue is to march out into the desert >and be bombed by B-52s or be mowed down by machine-gun fire. Anything >short of that is cheating. > >And now we have the siege of Basra. About a million and a half >people, 40 per cent of them children. Without clean water, and with >very little food. We're still waiting for the legendary Shia >"uprising", for the happy hordes to stream out of the city and rain >roses and hosannahs on the "liberating" army. Where are the hordes? >Don't they know that television productions work to tight schedules? >(It may well be that if Saddam's regime falls there will be dancing >on the streets of Basra. But then, if the Bush regime were to fall, >there would be dancing on the streets the world over.) > >After days of enforcing hunger and thirst on the citizens of Basra, >the "Allies" have brought in a few trucks of food and water and >positioned them tantalisingly on the outskirts of the city. Desperate >people flock to the trucks and fight each other for food. (The water >we hear, is being sold. To revitalise the dying economy, you >understand.) On top of the trucks, desperate photographers fought >each other to get pictures of desperate people fighting each other >for food. Those pictures will go out through photo agencies to >newspapers and glossy magazines that pay extremely well. Their >message: The messiahs are at hand, distributing fishes and loaves. > >As of July last year the delivery of $5.4bn worth of supplies to Iraq >was blocked by the Bush/Blair Pair. It didn't really make the news. >But now under the loving caress of live TV, 450 tonnes of >humanitarian aid - a minuscule fraction of what's actually needed >(call it a script prop) - arrived on a British ship, the "Sir >Galahad". Its arrival in the port of Umm Qasr merited a whole day of >live TV broadcasts. Barf bag, anyone? > >Nick Guttmann, head of emergencies for Christian Aid, writing for the >Independent on Sunday said that it would take 32 Sir Galahad's a day >to match the amount of food Iraq was receiving before the bombing >began. > >We oughtn't to be surprised though. It's old tactics. They've been at >it for years. Consider this moderate proposal by John McNaughton from >the Pentagon Papers, published during the Vietnam war: "Strikes at >population targets (per se) are likely not only to create a >counterproductive wave of revulsion abroad and at home, but greatly >to increase the risk of enlarging the war with China or the Soviet >Union. >Destruction of locks and dams, however - if handled right - might ... >offer promise. It should be studied. Such destruction does not kill >or drown people. By shallow-flooding the rice, it leads after time to >widespread starvation (more than a million?) unless food is provided - >which we could offer to do 'at the conference table'." > >Times haven't changed very much. The technique has evolved into a >doctrine. It's called "Winning Hearts and Minds". > >So, here's the moral maths as it stands: 200,000 Iraqis estimated to >have been killed in the first Gulf war. Hundreds of thousands dead >because of the economic sanctions. (At least that lot has been saved >from Saddam Hussein.) More being killed every day. Tens of thousands >of US soldiers who fought the 1991 war officially declared "disabled" >by a disease called the Gulf war syndrome, believed in part to be >caused by exposure to depleted uranium. It hasn't stopped the >"Allies" from continuing to use depleted uranium. > >And now this talk of bringing the UN back into the picture. But that >old UN girl - it turns out that she just ain't what she was cracked >up to be. She's been demoted (although she retains her high salary). >Now she's the world's janitor. She's the Philippino cleaning lady, >the Indian jamadarni, the postal bride from Thailand, the Mexican >household help, the Jamaican au pair. She's employed to clean other >peoples' shit. She's used and abused at will. > >Despite Blair's earnest submissions, and all his fawning, Bush has >made it clear that the UN will play no independent part in the >administration of postwar Iraq. The US will decide who gets those >juicy "reconstruction" contracts. But Bush has appealed to the >international community not to "politicise" the issue of humanitarian >aid. On the March 28, after Bush called for the immediate resumption >of the UN's oil for food programme, the UN security council voted >unanimously for the resolution. This means that everybody agrees that >Iraqi money (from the sale of Iraqi oil) should be used to feed Iraqi >people who are starving because of US led sanctions and the illegal >US-led war. > >Contracts for the "reconstruction" of Iraq we're told, in discussions >on the business news, could jump-start the world economy. It's funny >how the interests of American corporations are so often, so >successfully and so deliberately confused with the interests of the >world economy. While the American people will end up paying for the >war, oil companies, weapons manufacturers, arms dealers, and >corporations involved in "reconstruction" work will make direct gains >from the war. Many of them are old friends and former employers of >the Bush/ Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice cabal. Bush has already asked Congress >for $75bn. Contracts for "re-construction" are already being >negotiated. The news doesn't hit the stands because much of the US >corporate media is owned and managed by the same interests. > >Operation Iraqi Freedom, Tony Blair assures us is about returning >Iraqi oil to the Iraqi people. That is, returning Iraqi oil to the >Iraqi people via corporate multinationals. Like Shell, like Chevron, >like Halliburton. Or are we missing the plot here? Perhaps >Halliburton is actually an Iraqi company? Perhaps US vice-president >Dick Cheney (who is a former director of Halliburton) is a closet >Iraqi? > >As the rift between Europe and America deepens, there are signs that >the world could be entering a new era of economic boycotts. CNN >reported that Americans are emptying French wine into gutters, >chanting, "We don't want your stinking wine." We've heard about the >re-baptism of French fries. Freedom fries they're called now. There's >news trickling in about Americans boycotting German goods. The thing >is that if the fallout of the war takes this turn, it is the US who >will suffer the most. Its homeland may be defended by border patrols >and nuclear weapons, but its economy is strung out across the globe. >Its economic outposts are exposed and vulnerable to attack in every >direction. Already the internet is buzzing with elaborate lists of >American and British government products and companies that should be >boycotted. Apart from the usual targets, Coke, Pepsi and McDonald's - >government agencies such as USAID, the British department for >international development, British and American banks, Arthur >Anderson, Merrill Lynch, American Express, corporations such as >Bechtel, General Electric, and companies such as Reebok, Nike and Gap >- could find themselves under siege. These lists are being honed and >re fined by activists across the world. They could become a practical >guide that directs and channels the amorphous, but growing fury in >the world. Suddenly, the "inevitability" of the project of corporate >globalisation is beginning to seem more than a little evitable. > >It's become clear that the war against terror is not really about >terror, and the war on Iraq not only about oil. It's about a >superpower's self-destructive impulse towards supremacy, >stranglehold, global hegemony. The argument is being made that the >people of Argentina and Iraq have both been decimated by the same >process. Only the weapons used against them differ: In one case it's >an IMF chequebook. In the other, cruise missiles. > >Finally, there's the matter of Saddam's arsenal of weapons of mass >destruction. (Oops, nearly forgot about those!) > >In the fog of war - one thing's for sure - if Saddam 's regime indeed >has weapons of mass destruction, it is showing an astonishing degree >of responsibility and restraint in the teeth of extreme provocation. >Under similar circumstances, (say if Iraqi troops were bombing New >York and laying siege to Washington DC) could we expect the same of >the Bush regime? Would it keep its thousands of nuclear warheads in >their wrapping paper? What about its chemical and biological weapons? >Its stocks of anthrax, smallpox and nerve gas? Would it? > >Excuse me while I laugh. > >In the fog of war we're forced to speculate: Either Saddam is an >extremely responsible tyrant. Or - he simply does not possess weapons >of mass destruction. Either way, regardless of what happens next, >Iraq comes out of the argument smelling sweeter than the US >government. > >So here's Iraq - rogue state, grave threat to world peace, paid-up >member of the Axis of Evil. Here's Iraq, invaded, bombed, besieged, >bullied, its sovereignty shat upon, its children killed by cancers, >its people blown up on the streets. And here's all of us watching. >CNN-BBC, BBC-CNN late into the night. Here's all of us, enduring the >horror of the war, enduring the horror of the propaganda and enduring >the slaughter of language as we know and understand it. Freedom now >means mass murder (or, in the US, fried potatoes). When someone says >"humanitarian aid" we automatically go looking for induced >starvation. "Embedded" I have to admit, is a great find. It's what it >sounds like. And what about "arsenal of tactics?" Nice! > >In most parts of the world, the invasion of Iraq is being seen as a >racist war. The real danger of a racist war unleashed by racist >regimes is that it engenders racism in everybody - perpetrators, >victims, spectators. It sets the parameters for the debate, it lays >out a grid for a particular way of thinking. There is a tidal wave of >hatred for the US rising from the ancient heart of the world. In >Africa, Latin America, Asia, Europe, Australia. I encounter it every >day. Sometimes it comes from the most unlikely sources. Bankers, >businessmen, yuppie students, and they bring to it all the crassness >of their conservative, illiberal politics. That absurd inability to >separate governments from people: America is a nation of morons, a >nation of murderers, they say, (with the same carelessness with which >they say, "All Muslims are terrorists"). Even in the grotesque >universe of racist insult, the British make their entry as add-ons. >Arse-lickers, they're called. > >Suddenly, I, who have been vilified for being "anti-American" and >"anti-west", find myself in the extraordinary position of defending >the people of America. And Britain. > >Those who descend so easily into the pit of racist abuse would do >well to remember the hundreds of thousands of American and British >citizens who protested against their country's stockpile of nuclear >weapons . And the thousands of American war resisters who forced >their government to withdraw from Vietnam. They should know that the >most scholarly, scathing, hilarious critiques of the US government >and the "American way of life" comes from American citizens. And that >the funniest, most bitter condemnation of their prime minister comes >from the British media. Finally they should remember that right now, >hundreds of thousands of British and American citizens are on the >streets protesting the war. The Coalition of the Bullied and Bought >consists of governments, not people. More than one third of America's >citizens have survived the relentless propaganda they've been >subjected to, and many thousands are actively fighting their own >government. In the ultra-patriotic climate that prevails in the US, >that's as brave as any Iraqi fighting for his or her homeland. > >While the "Allies" wait in the desert for an uprising of Shia Muslims >on the streets of Basra, the real uprising is taking place in >hundreds of cities across the world. It has been the most spectacular >display of public morality ever seen. > >Most courageous of all, are the hundreds of thousands of American >people on the streets of America's great cities - Washington, New >York, Chicago, San Francisco. The fact is that the only institution >in the world today that is more powerful than the American >government, is American civil society. American citizens have a huge >responsibility riding on their shoulders. How can we not salute and >support those who not only acknowledge but act upon that >responsibility? They are our allies, our friends. > >At the end of it all, it remains to be said that dictators like >Saddam Hussein, and all the other despots in the Middle East, in the >central Asian republics, in Africa and Latin America, many of them >installed, supported and financed by the US government, are a menace >to their own people. Other than strengthening the hand of civil >society (instead of weakening it as has been done in the case of >Iraq), there is no easy, pristine way of dealing with them. (It's odd >how those who dismiss the peace movement as utopian, don't hesitate >to proffer the most absurdly dreamy reasons for going to war: to >stamp out terrorism, install democracy, eliminate fascism, and most >entertainingly, to "rid the world of evil-doers".) > >Regardless of what the propaganda machine tells us, these tin-pot >dictators are not the greatest threat to the world. The real and >pressing danger, the greatest threat of all is the locomotive force >that drives the political and economic engine of the US government, >currently piloted by George Bush. Bush-bashing is fun, because he >makes such an easy, sumptuous target. It's true that he is a >dangerous, almost suicidal pilot, but the machine he handles is far >more dangerous than the man himself. > >Despite the pall of gloom that hangs over us today, I'd like to file >a cautious plea for hope: in times of war, one wants one's weakest >enemy at the helm of his forces. And President George W Bush is >certainly that. Any other even averagely intelligent US president >would have probably done the very same things, but would have managed >to smoke-up the glass and confuse the opposition. Perhaps even carry >the UN with him. Bush's tactless imprudence and his brazen belief >that he can run the world with his riot squad, has done the opposite. >He has achieved what writers, activists and scholars have striven to >achieve for decades. He has exposed the ducts. He has placed on full >public view the working parts, the nuts and bolts of the apocalyptic >apparatus of the American empire. > >Now that the blueprint (The Ordinary Person's Guide to Empire) has >been put into mass circulation, it could be disabled quicker than the >pundits predicted. > >Bring on the spanners. - Fri, 4 Apr 2003 4:26pm | ||
| Anonymous | Well, I read the first 1/4, skimmed the next 1/4, and now I'm all burned out. I'll get back to it later. But yeah, really interesting! Thanks for posting it. - Fri, 4 Apr 2003 4:48pm | ||
| Anonymous | bump dis, yo - Fri, 4 Apr 2003 7:10pm | ||
| Anonymous | WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR - Fri, 4 Apr 2003 7:14pm | ||
| Anonymous | Some more anti-war propaganda. People are bitching about all the pro-war propaganda??? There is 100 times the lies and misinformation spread by people that are against the war. But hey, since from what I can see most people on this site do exactly what propaganda wants. It is "cool" to be anti-war. Why are you really against it? What is it about this war that makes you think it is so wrong? Anyone capable of an intelligent thought can tell there is more bullshit in this one article than in 24 hours of CNN. From what I have read in other threads though, most of the posters here are too stupid to think for themselves anyway. I dislike war but lying and believeing the lies isn't going to stop it. - Fri, 4 Apr 2003 7:41pm | ||
| Anonymous | "It is unlikely that British and American troops fighting in Iraq are >aware that their governments supported Saddam Hussein both >politically >and financially through his worst excesses" ? Do they know what the soldiers are aware of? Everyone else knows this. = propaganda lies. "(Perhaps he means that even if Iraqi people's bodies are >killed, their souls will be liberated.)" C'mon this is a sick joke right? They are telling you the presidents thoughts. = propaganda bullshit "After using the "good offices" of UN diplomacy (economic sanctions >and weapons inspections) to ensure that Iraq was brought to its >knees, its people starved, half a million of its children killed, its >infrastructure severely damaged, after making sure that most of its >weapons have been destroyed, in an act of cowardice that must surely >be unrivalled in history, the "Allies"/"Coalition of the Willing" >(better known as the Coalition of the Bullied and Bought) - >sent in an invading army! " If you cannot see the bullshit propaganda that is this paragraph, you should probably never come out of your house again. I am not even 20% through this article yet. This is kinda fun, try it for yourself and see what is anti-war propaganda. CNN would not stoop so low as to print this shit. But it is anti-war so I guess it is true right? - Fri, 4 Apr 2003 7:55pm | ||
| Trailer Park Boy Julian | Buddy I don't really get your point. I see you trying to pick apart that article and showing us where you think it is all propagandic lies, but honestly, your analysis is so weak I'm not sure you even know what you are writing about.... If you could come up with some evidence or even ideas that contradict those sections of the article you've pointed out I might be able to agree with you. But you haven't so far.... If you're saying that the writer has a bias, then that's fair enough, everyone does.... - Fri, 4 Apr 2003 8:11pm | ||
| Anonymous | Trailer Park Julian, you are one of the stupid people I mentioned. I do not need to pick it apart. READ It is obvious, I do not need to pick it apart, just fucking read it. I would try to explain it to you, but fuck buddy I guess you are just way too retarded. Do not worry though, there are tons of stupid people just like you. How can you think for even a minute that this is not bullshit?!?!?! I don't understand you people. It is a good thing not all canadians are as stupid as you. Hell, my two cousins from the states are with me right now making fun of you. Today is a sad sad day. Today americans finally figured out something that a canadian could not. Please, argue any point you want, but that last one. I got a punched in the kidney for writing that last one. - Fri, 4 Apr 2003 8:21pm | ||
| Trailer Park Boy Julian | Relax fella!! The article is basically an opinion piece, and as such has a bias. For that matter, everything we read or see has a bias. There's NO new news there. Obviously you disagree with the sentiments of the article, which is your perogative. But to write off this opinion, and any other opinion contrary to yours, is exceptionally small minded. Alls I am saying is, if you got some information, or an arguement that supports the war, then go ahead and "educate" us stupid people. Shit I'd EVEN read what you'd have to say! But if all you're gonna do is bitch and whine about "anti war propaganda" don't be surprised if you don't change anyone's mind.... Frankly, you sound like a punk assed kid who likes running off at the mouth but has nothing of substance to say.... Have fun at the boom boom room or where ever you hang out on the weekends!! Chachi!! - Fri, 4 Apr 2003 10:46pm | ||
| what an idiot | anon. this an opinion piece by some who is there, as opposed to your thoughts on the subject, which are supplied by CNN, and other American media outlets. You seem to want to fight so hard to prove that this war is right, why wouldn't people who think it's wrong do the same thing? You are nothing but insulting, not very eloquent, and appear to be not the brightest bulb in the bunch, but you go man, jump on that bandwagon. Did you see that picture in the Times Colonist that showed an Iraqi man crying over the grave of his wife, mother and father, and six children, all of whom died because of an american bomb? Do you want to go and tell that guy that it was worth his family for the US to get rid of the dictator that they helped support? If you actually had to live through a war your pathetic, sheltered, asshole-of-a-life opinion would probably be different. - Sat, 5 Apr 2003 11:49am | ||
| fuck off | hey no name idiot, it was a well-thought-out, well written piece on the war by an educated man, who is really there, maybe if some of you pro-war people had something to say other than "don't listen to the anti-war propaganda" (and don't give the smae old, Saddam's a tyrant phrase, he's an American supported tyrant, he's probably not getting the boot because he's a tyrant, he probably pissed off Rumsfeld or Cheney)If your mom and dad died tommorow because your house was bombed by a foriegn military I wonder how'd you feel. - Sat, 5 Apr 2003 12:19pm | ||
| Anonymous | CNN wouldn't print this article because they're a TV network, and very pro-war propaganda, dumbass. - Sat, 5 Apr 2003 12:30pm | ||
| Gleamer User Info... | I guess the majority of canadians that oppose this war are just doing it to be cool. - Sat, 5 Apr 2003 9:21pm | ||
| Menotria | Umm, trailer park julian almost looked like he could have one this debate with little difficulty, after all, he did prove that the anon is an idiot. But then "what an idiot" and "fuck off" posted their replies which proves that people really are wanting an excuse to believe the propaganda. Although no evidence has been giving by either side regarding the war, if two seperate people posted those remarks, then deffinately people are buying into this so called propaganda. Finally tally. Stupid anon ties Trailer boy - Sun, 6 Apr 2003 12:19am | ||
| Trailer Park Boy Julian | Damn you "fuck off" and "what an idiot"... I was lookin' so good there too.... ;-) - Sun, 6 Apr 2003 5:20am | ||
| Anonymous | This war sucks and anyone who thinks that the ends justify the means needs to take a night course in logic. 1+1 = 2. It really is that easy. - Sun, 6 Apr 2003 5:35am | ||
| Anonymous | How does adding 1 + 1 in any way prove that war is unjust? - Sun, 6 Apr 2003 11:36am | ||
|
|||
Not logged in
Log In / Register (optional)
Featured Events
Featured Historical Events
Featured Article
Newest Profiles
West Coast REACH Association
Utilizing music & the other performing arts for social good
722 Cormorant St. Victoria BC
Open / Operational
Thursday Night Jam at The Loft
Cancelled - no jam. Drummer's head wouldn't fit through the ...
229 Gorge Road East Victoria BC
Closed / Inactive
First Metropolitan United Fellowship Hall
Large hall in the First Metropolitan Church Building.
Open / Operational
