I was just pointing out how silly it is to have both sides of an arguement written by the same person with the same agenda.
I thought the WM in the first post missed all sorts of opportunities. It's sort of like being on the witness stand and only able to give yes or no answers. A skilled questioner can make you say all sorts of things you don't mean and that, explained fully, aren't even true.
Quote:
|
Not all war-protesters are dope-smoking "hippies" you know.......there might actually be one or two who know something.
|
That's funny--I thought it was the war-protesters who were doing all the stereotyping?
Some war protestors may actually know
something, but the anti-war debate always seems to revolve around past U.S. foreign policy and using other difficult situations in the world as comparisons. All valid issues, but not part of the debate over whether Iraq "needs invadin" right now. When war protestors bring up all the assorted chaff as in the initial post here, my immediate reaction is, "OK, here's another one whose mind is made-up just trying to bolster their position."
Open your mind. Open your eyes. Watch BBC, watch Fox News and watch and read everything in between. By the time we've toppled the Iraqi government and sent all its minions to their just reward, I hope to see that our overall effect on the people of the region was positive. I hope that you're hoping the same thing, too, because it would be pretty bitter and cynical if you weren't.
There is no "war debate". We're at war, so the only thing to debate is how it will end and what will happen afterwards. Get over it, stop posting smug pseudo-intellectual rhetoric, and start hoping as hard as you can that this ends well. Because if it doesn't, all the anti-war whining in the world won't save any of our asses.