I own some khaki pants. I like to tell myself that they are only for my job, but the truth is that I also enjoy shopping at Banana Republican.
There is nothing wrong with them. I think they are great. Anybody who does not like khaki pants has serious issues .
1) Jeff -- 81% is an *overwhelming* majority rarely seen in politics. If 49% of America is democrat, then a *sizable* number of democrats are in support of this war, once UN approval is achieved. 81% further reinforces the point that only the far left liberal extreme is against war. For you to be using this 81% figure to help bolster your argument is a sign of desparation. 2) RM95 -- Aside from your usual juvenile behavior, you've again missed the point. It is not *number* of posters, it is the activity level of posters. No Worries, rimbaud, rimrocker, FranchiseBlade, Jeff and glynch are very active and start numerous politically slanted threads.
Well, that was fairly obvious about me from the get-go, right? The peace movement, RM95, is an obvious cover for the No Khaki movement (some call it a cult). It was founded in Nice in the early part of the seventeenth century, and its true aims are to undermine people's sense of Docker-centred security. Soon, if our plans come to fruition, people will wear... something else! Mwahahahahaha!!!
One of the main reasons I'm in favor of using force against Saddam is because given time, he will acquire weapons of mass destruction and he will do everything in his power to use those weapons against the United States and/or Israel. Force is the only deterrent this man understands. He's a proven liar and a master of deception. He has been playing games with the UN for the past 11 years, and I respect Bush for not getting bullied around by these tactics while Saddam is going full steam ahead in his attempts to acquire wmd. Saddam must be stopped. In a perfect world, yes I would prefer for him to be stopped by another means than war, but if that's what it takes, I'm 100% behind it. I keep seeing the protestors use the rallying cry "No war for oil". I see this as an easy cop-out for the uneducated observer. It's easy to look at Bush and Cheney, two ex-oil guys, and say, "oh they just want oil". What do these people honestly think will happen with Iraq's oil fields? Do they think the US government will take them over and have the likes of ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco reap all the profits? A more likely scenario would be that this oil would be how Iraq rebuilds itself and achieve some sort of a standard of living. The other thing that irritates me is how the protestors couch the war as a war against the people of Iraq. The purpose is regime change, here. The war would be against Saddam and his cronies. In the long run the Iraqi people would stand to benefit greatly, IMHO.
Trader_Jorge MadMax Refman Pole giddyup StupidMoniker TheFreak Unless you're saying those you mentioned are smarter than these active conservative posters.
Let me translate using the Enigma machine: Well, that was fairly oblivious for me to learn we could get things right... After all, this peace movement is an obvious cover and my goal to talk about pants is to dispel the truth. I have found people with common sense have existed at least since the early part of the seventeenth century, and there true aim is to safeguard rights and people's sense of security. Soon, if our plans come to fruition, people will have little or no choice, and no rights!... (undecernible lingo)!!!
RM95 -- Unbelievable. Let me try this again: It is activity level that we are referring to, not *number* of posters. Just reread my last post. It obviously didn't register with you the first time.
Those are all very active posters. giddyup not as much, but he's just as active as FranchiseBlade or rimbaud.
So true, texx... To say you don't want to attack Saddam is essentially saying you trust him with your life...because when he can, he will...or he will give the means to someone else who will. It is only a matter of time. BELIEVE ME! There exists the "big bad man" (er..umm, Achebe) who will buy the goods to do so...Terrorism, Saddam...They are the big, bad man who will beat us slowly to death. The thing is are we gonna allow it? Are you gonna take your whippings and hope it stops...9/11 will pale in comparison to the carnage unleashed regards to a nuclear bomb. It's time we grab the whip and wrap it around the big bad man's neck! and show him our rights and freedoms will never be compromised!
No, I never called them poor. I said that the concept of the peace protest was being mischaracterized and it is. It is an easy way to sidestep the bigger issues. There is no question that conservatives are mischaracterized as well. I'm not debating that with you. You do not have to be a registered voter to participate in the poll but unless you want to debate the legitimacy of a phone survey, there really is no argument here. Bush and the GOP <b>DID</b> only have the support of around 10 percent of the entire public. Given that only 50 percent of Americans are registered and only about 36 percent turned out to the polls and the GOP got just over half those votes, do the math... If you have 100 people of whom only 50 are registered and 18 of them voted, you only need 10 of them to claim victory. That is just a simple fact. The poll surveyed American adults. Ok, so 81 percent of American adults. I don't get your logic here. If you believe all polling numbers are fundamentally wrong, well that's up to you. But even if they had a margin of error of 5 percent and that margin automatically shifted down, that is still over 75 percent. I don't watch enough TV or read enough of the newspaper to determine the level of coverage for any event. I doubt seriously any of us do. That would be a full-time job. It could be argued that showing soldiers leaving for war is more patriotic and pro military than peace sympathetic. The brave heroes marching off to fight evin in the ME? That doesn't sound particularly lefty to me. But, I'm not going to debate the liberal media bias argument. It would be better served in a different thread. In fact, it has been. I personally don't see liberal or conservative bias in the media nearly as much as I see corporate bias and that's a whole other ballgame.
Maybe because the so-called peace protestors don't know the best way to protest...If the perceived characterization of their protest is wrong, It's logical to summize the protestors themselves are at fault in exhibiting a well communicated, sound concept... I don't see a clear, unified message that makes me think inaction is the way to go...Especially dealing with a two headed monster such as Saddam/terrorists...
My one concern with the anti-war movement is the continued critique of Mr. Bush and Cheney's oil background. The claim that this entire war is above all "just about oil" is about as insane a statement as one could conjure up. My point is if this were true Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia would be leveled by this time. But okay, we don't agree. Whatever. Assuming the War on Terror goes beyond Iraq who poses a bigger threat to the United States? Is there a state sponser out there that is more malevolent than Iraq?
Well, most of us have yet to receive any proof at all that these two heads belong to the same monster, and that's important. Until Saddam is either linked to terrorists or attacks the US, we will be starting the conflict (if we act without the UN). I think bigtexxx made a great point when he asked if people thought American-based oil companies would benefit from Iraqi oil. Sadly, many people think this is the most likely outcome. I truly hope bigtexxx is correct, and oil profits would be used to rebuild and humanize Iraq. Ultimately, cynicism and trust separate lefties and righties here, it seems. Most of us want the same things to happen, but we believe different voices.
