Categories Uncategorized Natl Polemic Radio Post author By gala5931 Post date April 16, 2006 8 Comments on Natl Polemic Radio Here’s a little rhetoric for you, sure to either increase your blood’s temperature to the point at which it converts to gas or inspire you to pull out the US flag and march up and down your street. Tweet Share this:Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) ← Not Dropping → Starry Night 8 replies on “Natl Polemic Radio” Can it do both? “Peace is not just the absence of war. Like a cathedral, peace must be constructed patiently and with unshakable faith.” Kudos to naming that quote. Which is applicable to both sides of the argument about war. Incedentially, it would be nice if war were, you know, formally declared. I was a bit surprised to see that article there. Just gave it a brief scan, but it’s what I’ve been saying for quite some time about those who believe in the Jihad. (which is quite a big number) Oh and BFJFY, screw that formality of declaring war, and going by codes and Geneva accords. War is War, there are no rules. Imagine the Gauls telling Caesar, “Um excuse me s-s-s-sir but um you didn’t go through the proper procedure before you attacked us. F that. In other words I think the explosion of bombs and firing of guns is a pretty damn clear declaration of “It’s war, and we’re here to fu@* your sh?& up” 😉 Yes bro, that is true. But these aren’t the Gauls, this isn’t ancient Rome, and Bush is certainly not Ceaser, would that he were. I did not say I was against it, just that I would prefer if we went along the proper channels. Like anyone in the Congress or Senate would have gone against it at the start, you know? Lip service to the Constitution is still service, know what I mean? what exactly did the iraqis do to us again? oh, that’s right, they have a great playground for our tanks. I’ll take three, just put it on my credit card! I understand the argument that this guy is making–a completely polar difference between us and them, a fight to the death. I just think it’s a little melodramatic, and not very accurate. I truly believe that while this viewpoint is understandable (as are all viewpoints), especially in the current climate, it does not accurately reflect the founding principles of this country. Call me naive, idealistic, or just plain silly, but pragmatism in the face of simple immorality doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Ummmmm…I do not think that ALL viewpoints are understandable. And I’ll just stick to naive and idealistic. Which founding principles, again? That would be the founding principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of an astronomically high defense budget. Anyway…I pefer the founding principal of our country…Mr.Weatherbee. it is idealistic and naive to expect reasonable action from one’s government. It is not unreasonable, however, to expect that its citizens not be intentionally mislead. the founding principles I’m referring to are life and liberty. I don’t believe that life and liberty can be provided by preemptive war. It doesn’t matter whether or not anyone believed the intelligence about WMD was wrong, just that it _was_ wrong. Still, the whole thing reeks of deception. Cloak and dagger will always be a part of politics, but brazen, public lies are disturbing. Evidence of misdirection comes out all the time–the guantanamo bay detainees list was just released. Saudi Arabians made up about 130 of the around 550 names. Iraqis? 6. We have to ask: “What are our motives?” Leave a Reply Cancel reply This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.