I was watching the elections in the common room with my mate Rueben the other night. He's a pretty funny guy, and very controversial. Suddenly he shouts out, "I don't know why they give evangelical Christians the vote!" He got some serious death stares. But he makes a fair point....
Bush's 5 point plan 1. Make abortions illegal 2. Make same sex marrages illegal 3. Take away all civil liberties 4. Bomb everything in the east 5. RULE THE WORLD!!!!
By jove old bean, I do believe you're onto something! Tally fucking ho!!! Actually, there'd be a certain irony in slamming into the bastards with my right car wing
I've made a vote in the politics forum ... just to see how many right wingers there are on here ... doesn't seem to be attracting much interest though (votes are like that I guess) http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42714
It is not a case of being pro-war at all. It is a case of deciding when to use military force. Or to put it better, how far do we allow countries national soverignty to do as they please before we intervine. National sovereignty is enshrined in international law to protect a country if it is not threatening any other country. But does that mean we allow it to terrorise its own people? The anti-war campaigners shout "No War!" But we would not shout "Yes war", we would shout "yes military intervention". Which means we want to use military force for humanitarian reasons not for gain.
Yes, George Orwell suggested something similar in 1984. It's called Newspeak - the use of language to brainwash people into believing that a thing is something other than it is. LOL, killing people for humanitarian reasons! I like it!
'You have no hospital? Well hell let's build one for you! Coz that's the kind of people we are......just don't tell anyone how you lost it in the first place! ' http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3988433.stm Twats.
Look Zonk, sorry about this, but I'm going to have to burn you alive. It's for the good of humanity, so try not to feel too bad about it, eh? And no screaming..... coz that'd be a bit left wing of you
It's a US strategy to attack hospitals... not only is there the intial loss of life, but then the resulting loss of life caused by no medical help being available. Pregant women, children, old people and people with on-going illnesses will suffer the worst. Published on Tuesday, October 23, 2001 by the Associated Press UN: US Bomb Hit Military Hospital ISLAMABAD, Pakistan –– The United Nations confirmed Tuesday that a U.S. bomb had struck a military hospital in the western Afghan city of Herat. IPT Report: US bomb damage and civilian casualties in residential/commercial areas of Baghdad, 22-26 March 2003
Mistakes are always made in wartime. I don't believe it is deliberate US stratergy. I remember during the first Gulf War a bomb shelter was bombed in the belief it was a weapons store and hundreds of civilians died. It was not intentional though and was deeply regretted by allied forces. At least this time they actualy did try to minimise civilian casualties with the used of laser guided smart bombs, which were even more sophisticated than the ones used in the first Gulf War. One of the reasons there was a high civilian casualty rate was beause Saddam had deliberatly put tanks and troops in densley built up areas. Far worse deliberate acts of carnage were commited during World War II such as the fire bombing and carpet bombing of German and Japanese cities. Monstrous war crimes that killed millions of civilians. At least in this war there was no deliberate killing of civilians and unlike the first Gulf War no mass murder of enemy troops like the one which took place on the road to Basra from Kuwait. The number of civilian deaths should also be weighed against what would have happened if Saddam's regime had remained in Iraq indefinitly. Waiting in the wings for power were Saddam's evil sons Uday and Quasay whose sadism and cruelty knew no bounds. And it was also that regimes fault sanctions had not been lifted in over 12 years.
