Marijuana.com

Skot Head · 03-16-2002, 12:20 AM

Hello everyone!

First timer here.......I was reading threads on this forum, and just couldn't resist throwing in my two cents worth......anyway, on to the topic.

Just what are the war aims of the US and its allies?

The Bush administration would have us believe that the war is fueled by high minded ideas like freedom and a respect for humanity. A simple exercise in elementary logic proves otherwise, however.

For example, if those in power really value human life, then why did they make good on their threats to bomb and knowingly send millions of Afghan citizens fleeing for their lives, with only the harsh winter and starvation to look forward to, while at the same time demanding that Pakistan close the borders and eliminate truck convoys that carry desperately needed aid. That IS terrorism.
It is a total disregard for human life, with the intention of achieving political goals......the same thing that the monsters who flew airplanes into the world trade centers are guilty of.

All that you have to do is clear away the propaganda and you will find that the United States is more than willing to take innocent life in the pursuit of wealth and empire. The history of intervention and foriegn policy in this country speaks for itself on that matter.

Take this war as an example. Instead of pursuing those responsible for the 9/11 catastrophy through the UN and world court (the lawful thing to do), the US instead chose to act unilaterally and launch a campaign of war without thought of diplomacy or care for innocent life.

Just think about the reasoning behind bombing one of the poorest nations in the world to try and punish a comparatively small and radical group.

Or take a critical look at Bush's upcoming intervention plans. He is talking about making war with countries who have yet to do anything to this country, and using the "War Against Terrorism" to justify it. Doesn't that throw up some red flags?

It is clear that the US has a message to get across: step aside or else!

Anyway, I am out of time now, so I don't have time to elaborate any further. I will post more later, and I certainly await response.

Scott

PsYcHoLoGiCaL · 03-16-2002, 12:44 AM

1st off welcome to MJ.com.

However you say we should use the world court and the UN to persue the people who attacked the WTC and the Pentagon. However how do you suppose we get them there? Shall we just make an annoucement saying "Ok guys, if everyone that took part in the attack on the US could please report to the UN for sentencing then that would be great, thanks." because if that worked I surelly would be astonished.

We are not attacking afganhi cilvians we are attacking miltary targets, now in every war there are usallly cilvian casulties but we are in it for the big picture, and are trying to reduce to number of civlian casulatities that could take place in the future when you look at the big picture.

By reducing terrorist cells and combating the terrorist and those who sponser them you will, in the end save lives. And when it comes down too it most afganis didnt really care for the talibans repressive ways, and we are helping to liberate and i think most of them are gratfull because of it.

Niteshift · 03-16-2002, 01:53 AM

"Instead of pursuing those responsible for the 9/11 catastrophy through the UN and world court (the lawful thing to do),"

That's a farce. The "World Court" is almost powerless and the UN has proven itself to be an impotent joke. Since neither of them are true government entities, they have no actual power.

Case in point: The terrorists that planted the bomb aboard Pan Am flight 103. Getting the terrorists extradited drug on for years and years. Then, they demanded they be tried by Scottish law. And the governments all gave in.

The "World Court" operates solely by consent of the members. If you're not a member, they have no jurisdiction over you. Do you suppose Al Queda is a member?

"Just think about the reasoning behind bombing one of the poorest nations in the world to try and punish a comparatively small and radical group."

The country was aiding and haboring the terrorists. It's that simple. If you harbor a serial killer in your house, you should expect the police to break down your door to get to him, even though you aren't a murderer.

"He is talking about making war with countries who have yet to do anything to this country,"

WHAT? Libya, Iraq and Iran have all sponsored terrorist acts against the US. Some were successful, some were caught before they were completed.

N. Korea has long caused problems for the US, including periodic killings and beatings of US service members along the DMZ.

ALL of the countries named have routinely engaged in espionage against us.

None of the countries named are lilly white, pure virgins.

AlphaWolf · 03-16-2002, 04:10 AM

Quote:

The country was aiding and haboring the terrorists. It's that simple. If you harbor a serial killer in your house, you should expect the police to break down your door to get to him, even though you aren't a murderer.

A more apt, al be it less simplified description would be police breaking the door down.. locking the owners out into the cold to starve, while killing a few... all while the said serial killer escaped out the back door...

Quote:

WHAT? Libya, Iraq and Iran have all sponsored terrorist acts against the US. Some were successful, some were caught before they were completed.

Strangely enough.. all 3 of the above mentioned nations have also been recepiants of U.S made arms..

Quote:

N. Korea has long caused problems for the US, including periodic killings and beatings of US service members along the DMZ.

Absolutely, North Korea is no saint.. but our troops are in a very volitile explosive war zone, so occasional losses are to be expected when you're sitting on a powder keg.

Quote:

ALL of the countries named have routinely engaged in espionage against us.

As we have against them as well.. Information warfare is worldwide and no reason to call in the bombers.

Quote:

None of the countries named are lilly white, pure virgins.

Show me a nation that would qualify as such...

Niteshift · 03-16-2002, 04:43 AM

"A more apt, al be it less simplified description would be police breaking the door down.. locking the owners out into the cold to starve, while killing a few... all while the said serial killer escaped out the back door... "

I was INTENTIONALLY using a simple example. You want one that fits even better? If you provide a serial killer a base of operations to work from, provide him protection, give him a place to practice his craft and then refuse to turn him over to the proper authorities when he kills someone, then you deserve every goddamn thing that happens to you.

In many states, if you participate in any phase of a crime that results in the death of someone, everyone involved is guilty of murder. This is no different.

"Strangely enough.. all 3 of the above mentioned nations have also been recepiants of U.S made arms.."

And your point is???? Most nations have recieved US arms at one point or another in history. Even the Soviets did.

"but our troops are in a very volitile explosive war zone, so occasional losses are to be expected when you're sitting on a powder keg."

Really? You tell that to their families. You tell it to the mother of a soldier hacked to death with an axe on the DMZ, decades after the cease-fire was signed.

Got news for you, I've been on the DMZ. 2 days before I arrived there, a US service member was beaten nearly to death by North Korean soldiers. His crime? He got left by the tour group in the DEMILITARIZED, NEUTRAL part of the complex.

I haven't even started on their sabotage etc. well below the 38th Parallel.

"As we have against them as well.. Information warfare is worldwide and no reason to call in the bombers. "

I'm not talking about information warfare and you damn well know it.

AlphaWolf · 03-16-2002, 05:46 AM

Quote:

I was INTENTIONALLY using a simple example. You want one that fits even better? If you provide a serial killer a base of operations to work from, provide him protection, give him a place to practice his craft and then refuse to turn him over to the proper authorities when he kills someone, then you deserve every goddamn thing that happens to you.

I agree wholehartedly, but as it has turned out, this isn't what has happened in Afganistan thusfar... I do not question the legality of it.. or even the moral justification.. Bin Laden is a sick bastard and deserves to burn in hell for all eternty for what he has done... As well as anyone sick enough to commit the most hanius of crime..

Quote:

And your point is???? Most nations have recieved US arms at one point or another in history. Even the Soviets did.

We are now taking a position of aquasition of weapons of mass distruction as reason for warfare, when us ourselves are the greatest supplier of said weapons on earth..

Quote:

Really? You tell that to their families. You tell it to the mother of a soldier hacked to death with an axe on the DMZ, decades after the cease-fire was signed.

You of ALL people here should realize this... Our service men and women as well as our local police, fire and EMT forces put themselves in harms way on a daily basis, If you are going to choose such a dangerous line of work, then you and your family must be prepared for all secenerio's that might happen, that doesn't make it any less unfortuante or tragic.. North Korea is a power keg.. Nothing was truely solved during the Korean war, and its very unstable... Is it somewhere we need to engage militarily though? And risk angering a nuclear superpower right next door?

And espionage is conducted by every major nation on earth.... We do it.. they do it.. and forgive my ignorance but I was under the impression that information warfare was the same as espionage

Niteshift · 03-16-2002, 07:51 AM

"You of ALL people here should realize this... Our service men and women as well as our local police, fire and EMT forces put themselves in harms way on a daily basis, If you are going to choose such a dangerous line of work, then you and your family must be prepared for all secenerio's that might happen, that doesn't make it any less unfortuante or tragic.."

Who in the hell is talking about being prepared for it? I'm certainly not.

Yes, every day I go to work, I intentionally put myself in harms way. That doesn't in the slightest justify anyone ending my life. You are talking about an entirely different concept here. You're talking about "unfortunate" and "tragic"; I'm talking about right and wrong.

Being prepared to risk death does NOT mean rushing it. Nor does it mitigate in the slightest the actions of the wrongdoer.

Your logic is sick.

"We are now taking a position of aquasition of weapons of mass distruction as reason for warfare, when us ourselves are the greatest supplier of said weapons on earth.. "

We don't acquire, we build, which makes your point sort of...well, pointless.

"I do not question the legality of it.. or even the moral justification.."

Then what is your point?

dialcg · 03-16-2002, 08:09 AM

One problem I STILL have with our "war" activities in Afghanistan (and anywhere really), is the killing of innocents. I agree that something needed to be done to apprehend/punish the terrorists, but any time even 1 completely innocent person is killed (and many more than 1 innocent peasant in Afghanistan has been killed!) it really bothers me. I am aware that ~ 5000 innocents were killed in the WTC, but to ME that does in in itself justify even 1 MORE innocent death, just because these innocents live 1/2 around the world, don't look/speak/believe like me does NOT mean I should give them any less consideration than my OWN FAMILY. I mean, human life intrinsically has a certain amount of worth, and the value of it does not (Should not) depend on your wealth, country of origin, or religion.

That being said, lets F*CKING KICK BIN LADENS AS5! But without indiscriminate bombing based on WEAK intelligence leads.

Chris D

dialcg · 03-16-2002, 08:18 AM

[quote]

[b]"You of ALL people here should realize this... Our service men and women as well as our local police, fire and EMT forces put themselves in harms way on a daily basis, If you are going to choose such a dangerous line of work, then you and your family must be prepared for all secenerio's that might happen, that doesn't make it any less unfortuante or tragic.."

Who in the hell is talking about being prepared for it? I'm certainly not.

Yes, every day I go to work, I intentionally put myself in harms way. That doesn't in the slightest justify anyone ending my life. You are talking about an entirely different concept here. You're talking about "unfortunate" and "tragic"; I'm talking about right and wrong.

Being prepared to risk death does NOT mean rushing it. Nor does it mitigate in the slightest the actions of the wrongdoer.

Your logic is sick.

NiteShift, I argree with you ALMOST completely

I disagree when the case is soldiers going to war.
They are there, simply, to kill the enemy or be killed by the enemy. In this circumstance, there is no "wrongdoer" as the other guy is just "fighting for the country" just as YOU are. I mean, if someone is responsible, who is it? I killed him because he was going to kill me, because he knew we were tying to kill him, ect...

The guy you shoot on a battlefield may have a life that is morally equal to, better than, or less than yours. You just don't know. I do not believe WAR is ethical and I would be a conscientious objector if it came up. If our homeland needed to be defended that would be different, I would fight in the event of invasion, but that is much different.

CHris D

Bongzilla · 03-16-2002, 09:24 AM

God this is just going to drag on and on.

The point of arguing isn't to make others believe in your point or to feel like you are better and smarter than the other. Most people here are just typing their opinion over and over again, each believing they are the right one, without even sitting back and seriously thinking about the other person's view.

YES killing is WRONG, it doesn't matter who it is. In a perfect world (or an enlightened world where we think globally and not juse from now until the next election) we would not be killing, because that is NOT going to solve anything, it will always continue if we keep hitting them for hitting us. However, there are going to be more wars with our mentality, and in our current position it is the easiest 'solution' to the problem at hand right now. We will always 'know' that we are better than the enemy and our way of life is better no matter what our side is doing, so arguing about the faults of our government to most people is like telling a blind man what seeing is like. This war is going to be like all the other wars in that it will be the 'war to end all terrorism' and so will the next ones. It will not end. People would rather watch CNN in their home seeing us win and them losing at this present time than have long boring talks (where money is being spent and people are still dying, no revenge being taken place) that could go on for what seems like eternity. But no matter how you look at it, those long boring talks and helping out the potential bad guy is the only way you can really strive towards peace in the future, whether it be 10, 50, or 100 years.

Can anyone truly say that we will obliterate terrorism with this war? Or that it is more than revenge? Now obviously someone is going to say 'Well Bongzilla, what do you think should be done?' - well I have my opinions and they aren't going to be enforced amongst the government, and even if they were they could take 100 years and a million unavenged deaths and many angry people and could still not work in the end. All I know is we are just as wrong as everyone else, and I am not taking sides in this one.

03-16-2002, 12:20 AM	#1
Skot Head New Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Posts: 19 Diggs: 0 Grams: 325.70 Groans: 0 Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Stock Portfolio Total Value: 0.000 Gain/Loss: 0.000%	Motives behind the supposed "War On Terrorism" Hello everyone! First timer here.......I was reading threads on this forum, and just couldn't resist throwing in my two cents worth......anyway, on to the topic. Just what are the war aims of the US and its allies? The Bush administration would have us believe that the war is fueled by high minded ideas like freedom and a respect for humanity. A simple exercise in elementary logic proves otherwise, however. For example, if those in power really value human life, then why did they make good on their threats to bomb and knowingly send millions of Afghan citizens fleeing for their lives, with only the harsh winter and starvation to look forward to, while at the same time demanding that Pakistan close the borders and eliminate truck convoys that carry desperately needed aid. That IS terrorism. It is a total disregard for human life, with the intention of achieving political goals......the same thing that the monsters who flew airplanes into the world trade centers are guilty of. All that you have to do is clear away the propaganda and you will find that the United States is more than willing to take innocent life in the pursuit of wealth and empire. The history of intervention and foriegn policy in this country speaks for itself on that matter. Take this war as an example. Instead of pursuing those responsible for the 9/11 catastrophy through the UN and world court (the lawful thing to do), the US instead chose to act unilaterally and launch a campaign of war without thought of diplomacy or care for innocent life. Just think about the reasoning behind bombing one of the poorest nations in the world to try and punish a comparatively small and radical group. Or take a critical look at Bush's upcoming intervention plans. He is talking about making war with countries who have yet to do anything to this country, and using the "War Against Terrorism" to justify it. Doesn't that throw up some red flags? It is clear that the US has a message to get across: step aside or else! Anyway, I am out of time now, so I don't have time to elaborate any further. I will post more later, and I certainly await response. Scott

03-16-2002, 12:44 AM	#2
PsYcHoLoGiCaL Seasoned Activist Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 1,599 Diggs: 0 Grams: 2,189.70 Groans: 0 Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post Stock Portfolio Total Value: 0.000 Gain/Loss: 0.000%	1st off welcome to MJ.com. However you say we should use the world court and the UN to persue the people who attacked the WTC and the Pentagon. However how do you suppose we get them there? Shall we just make an annoucement saying "Ok guys, if everyone that took part in the attack on the US could please report to the UN for sentencing then that would be great, thanks." because if that worked I surelly would be astonished. We are not attacking afganhi cilvians we are attacking miltary targets, now in every war there are usallly cilvian casulties but we are in it for the big picture, and are trying to reduce to number of civlian casulatities that could take place in the future when you look at the big picture. By reducing terrorist cells and combating the terrorist and those who sponser them you will, in the end save lives. And when it comes down too it most afganis didnt really care for the talibans repressive ways, and we are helping to liberate and i think most of them are gratfull because of it. __________________ "Many of life's failures are people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up." -- Thomas A. Edison

03-16-2002, 01:53 AM	#3
Niteshift L.E.O. in Good Standing Join Date: Dec 2000 Posts: 6,432 Diggs: 0 Grams: 2,031.42 Groans: 0 Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post Stock Portfolio Total Value: 0.000 Gain/Loss: 0.000%	"Instead of pursuing those responsible for the 9/11 catastrophy through the UN and world court (the lawful thing to do)," That's a farce. The "World Court" is almost powerless and the UN has proven itself to be an impotent joke. Since neither of them are true government entities, they have no actual power. Case in point: The terrorists that planted the bomb aboard Pan Am flight 103. Getting the terrorists extradited drug on for years and years. Then, they demanded they be tried by Scottish law. And the governments all gave in. The "World Court" operates solely by consent of the members. If you're not a member, they have no jurisdiction over you. Do you suppose Al Queda is a member? "Just think about the reasoning behind bombing one of the poorest nations in the world to try and punish a comparatively small and radical group." The country was aiding and haboring the terrorists. It's that simple. If you harbor a serial killer in your house, you should expect the police to break down your door to get to him, even though you aren't a murderer. "He is talking about making war with countries who have yet to do anything to this country," WHAT? Libya, Iraq and Iran have all sponsored terrorist acts against the US. Some were successful, some were caught before they were completed. N. Korea has long caused problems for the US, including periodic killings and beatings of US service members along the DMZ. ALL of the countries named have routinely engaged in espionage against us. None of the countries named are lilly white, pure virgins. __________________ A burning desire for social justice is never a substitute for knowing what you're talking about. -Thomas Sowell Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is muzzle flash.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

New To Site?	Need Help?
Register to Participate View Forum Leaders Contact Us	Frequently Asked Questions Did you forget your password? Mark Forums Read

Remove Advertisements Marijuana.com Sponsor
Marijuana.com Advertisement	<a rel='nofollow' href='http://adserver.marijuana.com/www/delivery/ck.php?n=a78e9dba&cb=INSERT_RANDOM_NUMBER_HERE' target='_blank'><img src='http://adserver.marijuana.com/www/delivery/avw.php?zoneid=6&cb=INSERT_RANDOM_NUMBER_HERE&n=a78e9dba' border='0' alt='' /></a>

03-16-2002, 04:43 AM	#5
Niteshift L.E.O. in Good Standing Join Date: Dec 2000 Posts: 6,432 Diggs: 0 Grams: 2,031.42 Groans: 0 Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post Stock Portfolio Total Value: 0.000 Gain/Loss: 0.000%	"A more apt, al be it less simplified description would be police breaking the door down.. locking the owners out into the cold to starve, while killing a few... all while the said serial killer escaped out the back door... " I was INTENTIONALLY using a simple example. You want one that fits even better? If you provide a serial killer a base of operations to work from, provide him protection, give him a place to practice his craft and then refuse to turn him over to the proper authorities when he kills someone, then you deserve every goddamn thing that happens to you. In many states, if you participate in any phase of a crime that results in the death of someone, everyone involved is guilty of murder. This is no different. "Strangely enough.. all 3 of the above mentioned nations have also been recepiants of U.S made arms.." And your point is???? Most nations have recieved US arms at one point or another in history. Even the Soviets did. "but our troops are in a very volitile explosive war zone, so occasional losses are to be expected when you're sitting on a powder keg." Really? You tell that to their families. You tell it to the mother of a soldier hacked to death with an axe on the DMZ, decades after the cease-fire was signed. Got news for you, I've been on the DMZ. 2 days before I arrived there, a US service member was beaten nearly to death by North Korean soldiers. His crime? He got left by the tour group in the DEMILITARIZED, NEUTRAL part of the complex. I haven't even started on their sabotage etc. well below the 38th Parallel. "As we have against them as well.. Information warfare is worldwide and no reason to call in the bombers. " I'm not talking about information warfare and you damn well know it.

03-16-2002, 07:51 AM	#7
Niteshift L.E.O. in Good Standing Join Date: Dec 2000 Posts: 6,432 Diggs: 0 Grams: 2,031.42 Groans: 0 Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post Stock Portfolio Total Value: 0.000 Gain/Loss: 0.000%	"You of ALL people here should realize this... Our service men and women as well as our local police, fire and EMT forces put themselves in harms way on a daily basis, If you are going to choose such a dangerous line of work, then you and your family must be prepared for all secenerio's that might happen, that doesn't make it any less unfortuante or tragic.." Who in the hell is talking about being prepared for it? I'm certainly not. Yes, every day I go to work, I intentionally put myself in harms way. That doesn't in the slightest justify anyone ending my life. You are talking about an entirely different concept here. You're talking about "unfortunate" and "tragic"; I'm talking about right and wrong. Being prepared to risk death does NOT mean rushing it. Nor does it mitigate in the slightest the actions of the wrongdoer. Your logic is sick. "We are now taking a position of aquasition of weapons of mass distruction as reason for warfare, when us ourselves are the greatest supplier of said weapons on earth.. " We don't acquire, we build, which makes your point sort of...well, pointless. "I do not question the legality of it.. or even the moral justification.." Then what is your point?

03-16-2002, 08:09 AM	#8
dialcg Jr. Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Posts: 159 Diggs: 0 Grams: 349.05 Groans: 0 Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Stock Portfolio Total Value: 0.000 Gain/Loss: 0.000%	One problem I STILL have with our "war" activities in Afghanistan (and anywhere really), is the killing of innocents. I agree that something needed to be done to apprehend/punish the terrorists, but any time even 1 completely innocent person is killed (and many more than 1 innocent peasant in Afghanistan has been killed!) it really bothers me. I am aware that ~ 5000 innocents were killed in the WTC, but to ME that does in in itself justify even 1 MORE innocent death, just because these innocents live 1/2 around the world, don't look/speak/believe like me does NOT mean I should give them any less consideration than my OWN FAMILY. I mean, human life intrinsically has a certain amount of worth, and the value of it does not (Should not) depend on your wealth, country of origin, or religion. That being said, lets F*CKING KICK BIN LADENS AS5! But without indiscriminate bombing based on WEAK intelligence leads. Chris D

03-16-2002, 08:18 AM	#9
dialcg Jr. Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Posts: 159 Diggs: 0 Grams: 349.05 Groans: 0 Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Stock Portfolio Total Value: 0.000 Gain/Loss: 0.000%	[quote] [b]"You of ALL people here should realize this... Our service men and women as well as our local police, fire and EMT forces put themselves in harms way on a daily basis, If you are going to choose such a dangerous line of work, then you and your family must be prepared for all secenerio's that might happen, that doesn't make it any less unfortuante or tragic.." Who in the hell is talking about being prepared for it? I'm certainly not. Yes, every day I go to work, I intentionally put myself in harms way. That doesn't in the slightest justify anyone ending my life. You are talking about an entirely different concept here. You're talking about "unfortunate" and "tragic"; I'm talking about right and wrong. Being prepared to risk death does NOT mean rushing it. Nor does it mitigate in the slightest the actions of the wrongdoer. Your logic is sick. NiteShift, I argree with you ALMOST completely I disagree when the case is soldiers going to war. They are there, simply, to kill the enemy or be killed by the enemy. In this circumstance, there is no "wrongdoer" as the other guy is just "fighting for the country" just as YOU are. I mean, if someone is responsible, who is it? I killed him because he was going to kill me, because he knew we were tying to kill him, ect... The guy you shoot on a battlefield may have a life that is morally equal to, better than, or less than yours. You just don't know. I do not believe WAR is ethical and I would be a conscientious objector if it came up. If our homeland needed to be defended that would be different, I would fight in the event of invasion, but that is much different. CHris D

03-16-2002, 09:24 AM	#10
Bongzilla Seasoned Activist Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 1,202 Diggs: 0 Grams: 2,202.15 Groans: 0 Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Stock Portfolio Total Value: 0.000 Gain/Loss: 0.000%	God this is just going to drag on and on. The point of arguing isn't to make others believe in your point or to feel like you are better and smarter than the other. Most people here are just typing their opinion over and over again, each believing they are the right one, without even sitting back and seriously thinking about the other person's view. YES killing is WRONG, it doesn't matter who it is. In a perfect world (or an enlightened world where we think globally and not juse from now until the next election) we would not be killing, because that is NOT going to solve anything, it will always continue if we keep hitting them for hitting us. However, there are going to be more wars with our mentality, and in our current position it is the easiest 'solution' to the problem at hand right now. We will always 'know' that we are better than the enemy and our way of life is better no matter what our side is doing, so arguing about the faults of our government to most people is like telling a blind man what seeing is like. This war is going to be like all the other wars in that it will be the 'war to end all terrorism' and so will the next ones. It will not end. People would rather watch CNN in their home seeing us win and them losing at this present time than have long boring talks (where money is being spent and people are still dying, no revenge being taken place) that could go on for what seems like eternity. But no matter how you look at it, those long boring talks and helping out the potential bad guy is the only way you can really strive towards peace in the future, whether it be 10, 50, or 100 years. Can anyone truly say that we will obliterate terrorism with this war? Or that it is more than revenge? Now obviously someone is going to say 'Well Bongzilla, what do you think should be done?' - well I have my opinions and they aren't going to be enforced amongst the government, and even if they were they could take 100 years and a million unavenged deaths and many angry people and could still not work in the end. All I know is we are just as wrong as everyone else, and I am not taking sides in this one.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Marijuana.com

Hot Products: