I appreciate this is a rare sight within this part of the forum.. but some GOOD news .. and shock its a military action form those 'iraqi killers' ..mmm ok sorry for that.. i'll shut it .. no need for any of that. http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/iraq I profoundly disagree with the hostages and what they believe to be true.. but they do not deserve the treatment they recieved.. Hint: stay at home.
good news, ermm its a shock those Iraqi/terrorist/evil bastards did't just kill them as you know, lack of soul... and the fact they were there was because of an invasion of a sovereign state, okay i'll stop there. i profoudly agree with what the hostages where doing, but a life is a life, so i'm just glad these lives are still in action.
Lets see, they did kill one of them, and eventually probably the others if the military hadn't intervened. What the hell are you trying to say?
jeez, its called humour, i was giving opposite view to Matthews post, as he is quite biased to his leaning on his stance on war, as am I. its just funny that people who see us so-called liberals who were against the war so against it, that if something goes right this is proof of our ignorance. and it workd the other way, when 'we' use examples of wrong doings in war to prove that the war was wrong. i do not believe in the war in the first place because of ideological reasons, matthew clearly does, i just believe there is a huge split on this website where people presume the extreme of both sides and go instantly on the offensive
i believe the humour was lost upon this post, i was just suggesting by writing as the extreme liberal stance, as you implied that 'us' against the war in iraq hated all the military and that it was almost a point to be made that it was the military who saved them. you assume an extreme of 'us' liberals. i kinda agree with their stance. i do personally believe it was an illegal war whether lawyers would ague otherwise. pre-9/11 there a was an acceptance upon the world of western interference, i.e. peace keeping, peace enforcement and humanitarian intervention. 9/11 along with Bush and Blair changed the meaning to the original situation of greedful means and state v state. and why do you say- 'stick to wishing for peace, do not go political'. what if the way to gain more peace around the planet is to get involved politically. politics is very wide, and includes the want for peace. i see the two as been interconnected. i do not like a misreprestation of facts either, which is why i had to comment on your presumption.
i know you were kinda joking, so that is why i tried to respond in kind....... but clearly i failed it does make sense what you were saying about staying neatral. just trying to help both sides, and you are correct this is the best way to go about it. this actually was the initial defintion of 'peace keeping' and 'peace enforcement' well esepcially the first term. i believe it is hard for people such as us to not behave in a way because we live in a democracy and therefore our government it representing us, and if we disagree its hard, as given the whole going to the war in iraq.... not impossible i don't like to put people into pidgeon holes either, but i do believe many do, and split people up to two extremes, the left and the right, and even if one side has a reasonable point the others side will always be against it.
I'm not the only one giving him a bit of grief http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4844800.stm HE made the best effort NOT to mention the word 'military action'... i guess now he is a 'national treasure' he'll get away with bein... mmm ok i'll let the poor guy have a night at home..before i get any more rude
