|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
posted February 07, 2003 06:07 AM |
|
|
Quote
“Reading your propaganda-parrot-like posting, I feel strongly reminded of Orwell´s "1984".”
LOL have you even read 1984? If so you really missed the whole point. The story was about communists dictators and their thought police…how man can lose his way when freedom and history is destroyed by the ever present police state (aka Iraq, former USSR, china, NK, etc.)
Powell’s speech was incredibly powerful and even liberals to ultra liberals in our own country have now been convinced (Kennedy, Feinstein, Daschle, etc.) that the verdict is in…Saddam has WMD, has links to terrorism, and is hiding evidence from inspectors.
So Powell’s speech you already heard everything before?…that is such a crock….Please for our mutual edification tell me exactly where you heard these specific facts and evidence before Powell’s speech (excerpts from BBC):
1. Mr. Powell presented a communication intercept of a conversation between an Iraqi colonel and a general. In the intercept, Mr. Powell says, one of the officers says: "We evacuated everything. We don't have anything left."
2. Mr. Powell presented an illustrated satellite image of a weapons munitions facility, which is known to have held chemical weapons. He also showed pictures of what he said was a ballistic missile facility two days before the inspectors arrived, with vehicles outside including a crane for moving missiles.
3. Iraqi officials hid correspondence on military industrialization, ordered the removal of banned weapons from key sites and hid prohibited items in their homes, Mr. Powell said.
4. Iraqi scientists have been told by Saddam Hussein that they were not to agree to be interviewed outside Iraq - in contravention of the UN resolution. Anyone agreeing to be interviewed was told they would be treated as a spy. Saddam Hussein threatened Iraqi scientists with death if they divulged information to UN weapons inspectors, Mr. Powell said.
5. Iraq he said was in possession of mobile research laboratories. He showed diagrams of these alleged mobile factories. He said the facilities were sophisticated, and could produce items such as anthrax.
6. Mr. Powell played a communications intercept in which one officer appeared to tell another to remove the expression "nerve agents" from all wireless instructions.
7. Powell also showed pictures of what he said was a chemical weapons facility, with arrows pointing to areas of disturbed earth. He said these were evidence that the Iraqis had removed the entire crust of earth in the area so there would be no evidence of the years of chemical weapons work there.
8. Powell said the Iraqi authorities had conducted experiments on people, with one source reporting that 1,600 convicted prisoners had been transferred to special units where such experiments were carried out. Autopsies were later conducted to check the results, he said.
9. He said Iraq already possessed two of the three components needed to produce a nuclear bomb
10. Powell said Iraq has programs to produce ballistic missiles which can fly more than 1,200 kilometers. He said such missiles were not intended for self-defense, but to deliver chemical, biological and - if we let him - nuclear warheads.
11. Mr. Powell said Iraq "harbors" a terrorist network headed by al-Qaeda operative Abu Musab Zarqawi. This network helped establish another poison and explosives training camp in north-east Iraq. Powell showed a picture he said was of this camp.
12. He said Zarqawi was teaching operatives how to produce Ricin and other poisons. He said Baghdad has an agent in the senior ranks of Ansar al-Islam, the group holding an enclave in north-east Iraq.
13. He showed photographs of a number of al-Qaeda members linked to a network operating through North Africa, Europe, and in the former Soviet Union, including Georgia and Chechnya. He said close ties had been forged between al-Qaeda and Iraqi intelligence sources since the early 1990s.
14. Iraqis visited Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan and provided training to al-Qaeda members. "Ambition and hatred are enough to bring Iraq and al-Qaeda together," Mr. Powell said. He said Iraq maintained active links with Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network, using its embassy in Pakistan as a "liaison office".
And that doesn’t even include the mass of evidence that he summarized as previously delineated by Bush.
I am going to love hearing you try to find that specific evidence pre-Powell speech…good luck…lol
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted February 07, 2003 06:47 AM |
|
|
Quote:
LOL have you even read 1984? If so you really missed the whole point. The story was about communists dictators and their thought police…
If you think that thought police is specific to communist dictators, I assure you that you are the one who missed the whole point.
Quote:
So Powell’s speech you already heard everything before?
No, I say that all experts that I´ve heard and read in the media (even the most US-friendly ones who criticise our gouvernment for not kissing the US ass every second day) have evaluated the speech as I described above. Among them Kinkel, who has been foreign minister under Kohl.
____________
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted February 07, 2003 08:46 AM |
|
|
Quote
“If you think that thought police is specific to communist dictators, I assure you that you are the one who missed the whole point.”
You are the one who brought up the 1984 reference and then proceded to completely miss the context of the book. The book was completely about tyrannical communism/socialism. The head of “Oceania” was “Big Brother” The “Ministry of Plenty” was the government who redistributed/rationed all goods and supplies. Those in power were simply known as “The Party”. The Party originated out as an organization called “English Socialism“. The people were suppose to call each other “comrade”. “Before the Revolution they had been hideously oppressed by the capitalist”. Their history books rewrote history and reported that “These rich men were called capitalists. They were fat, ugly men with wicked faces…The capitalist s owned everything in the world, and everyone else was their slave….it was the law that every capitalist had the right to sleep with any woman working in one of his factories”. The revolutionary political cartoonist in the story, Rutherford, did characters of “slum tenements, starving children, street battles, capitalist in top hats”. I could go on and on as that is just the fist 68 pages….needless to say the point is made. Time to terminate your literature teacher.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted February 07, 2003 03:15 PM |
|
|
I found that reference to mobile laboritories interesting as many british papers reported that it was a british company that sold them in the 1st place, neither Britain or America moved to stop the sale at the time either.
1. Do they actually mention anything specific here? No offense, but that's not damning otherwise! Conversations can be taken out of context and/or fabricated.
10. Interesting, so do many other nations that we happily assume won't use the same weapons for chemical purposes.
Actually having had some small chance to see some of these pictures of these camps, it's of some interest as to how exactly it has been determined what their specific purpose are as this is not clear from the photos I have seen (through british papers)
13. Why the hell did we not do something about it then? We've apparently known for 10 years that hussain has links to terrorism and we only now sit up and take notice?
Overall from what I've seen and read, it's far from overly convincing evidence by itself, more of a case of you having to trust Powell and american sources that what they say is chemical and dangerous is so. Also you have to begin with the trust that the evidence will not be "discovered" where it doesn't always exist.
As I've said all long, he's probably got some, probably hiding them, probably will use them when (note not if, there's no way in hell GWB will not invade now) an invasion is launched and not before. Whether that justifies the reducing of the nation and people to an even worse state with bombing and invasion is a mute point. I'd like him removed, but not through heavy bombing and invasion, but then again I would have liked powell to come up with some more convincing evidence than what he has. Either that or I'm not looking at the right evidence, but a gentleman pointing to a picture of 6 or 7 buildings and stating this is a chemical factory doesn't mean it is so in my mind. Perhaps the papers I've seen aren't reporting him correctly.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted February 07, 2003 03:16 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Time to terminate your literature teacher.
Hmmmmm, I´ve made a test and both entered [+"mccarthy" +"big brother"] and [+communism +"big brother"] into googlefight, and guess what happened? Mccarthy won by 19100 to 8980!
Yes, maybe the book has been written solely to describe communism. And maybe the book´s only purpose is to be put under the leg of a shaky table. Who knows?
Much more likely is that Orwell´s intention with "1984" was an analogy to totalitarism and censorship in general. At the time when the book was published, "big brother" may have had the face of Stalin, but that doesn´t make it a book about communism only.
In The Road to Wigan Pier from 1936 Orwell writes:Quote:
"In the end I worked out an anarchist theory that all government is evil, that the punishment always does more harm than the crime and that people can be trusted to behave decently if only you will let them alone." [RWP, pp. 128-129]
Or how about thisQuote:
"The thing that attracts ordinary men to Socialism and makes them willing to risk their skins for it, the 'mystique' of Socialism, is the idea of equality; to the vast majority of people Socialism means a classless society, or it means nothing at all." [HTC p. 102]
"And, after all, instead of disillusioning me it deeply attracted me. The effect was to make my desire to see Socialism established much more actual than it had been before." [HTC p. 103]
I didn´t even know that before, but it seems like our friend Orwell was a socialist! If he knew that you are using him for your ultra-right republican propaganda purposes, he´d probably step out of his grave and haunt you.
I think we´ve just seen another example of your very very own reality, Dargon.
____________
|
|
radiohead99
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted February 07, 2003 11:39 PM |
|
|
attack iraq
Well the compelling evidense given by colin powell and george w was less than compelling and yet america is considering a unilateral attack on iraq anyway. Will it go down in history that the U.S. is the country that will have in the end destroyed the u.n.'s credibilty by disregarding attempts at peace for what comes down to as oil money and resources and more control in the arab countries that american politicians crave so much. i am canadian and as u may be able to tell if i were american i would be a democrat, and as a side note i would like to fight tucker carlson from crossfire but the biggest problem i have is this. What gives the U.S. the right to decide who governs a country regardless of their wepons or humanitarian record? shud the american govt spend 100 billion on a war with iraq when 40 million americans have no health insurance and 10 million are homeless? i think everyone wud be happier if the us worried about its own borders for a change and quit worrying about what goes ojn in other countries.
____________
|
|
radiohead99
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted February 08, 2003 12:02 AM |
|
|
speaking of propaganda ever watch cnn?
to say that anyone would support saddam in iraq if they were subjected to the propaganda they get and not talk of american propaganda in the same sentence is as ignorant as you are ever gonna get. if you have watched cnn for any of the past 7 months the conflict with iraq started in july when the name "SHOWDOWN WITH IRAQ" was pumped into american and canadian homes 10 times a day for several months now. i seem to recall an election in iraq where people dance in the streets and burn american flags and fire guns in support of saddam. i dont think he is a good leader i do think he is probably dangerous but so are a lot of countries and a lot of rulers.
The problem here is that you have to consider the effect that actions will have in the future as well. do you think an attack on iraq is going to anger muslim extremists? will it like motivate another round of attacks on the US? is the danger and hostility level towards the US going to decrease if you depose your biggest threat? i think the answer is no. Also i dont think comparisons between clinton and bush are fair.when clinton was in power republicans did everything in ther power to hinder his ability to govern with things not relative to politics yet with this war on terrorism it is unamerican to spek too strongly against the president so democrats do not thave the same opportunity to attack bush on foreign issues with out seeming unpatriotic.
the last comment i wanted to make is about the TERROR ALERT SYSTEM. Does anyones behavior actually change when the alert goes up??? or is this just a form of propaganda to increase fear and make people more receptive to war with the terrorists and dictators??
DISARM AMERICA
____________
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted February 08, 2003 12:10 AM |
|
|
Quote:
LOL have you even read 1984? If so you really missed the whole point. The story was about communists dictators and their thought police?how man can lose his way when freedom and history is destroyed by the ever present police state (aka Iraq, former USSR, china, NK, etc.)
Perhaps he was referring to the way that alliances changed suddenly and former alliances were swept under the rug (for instance, 80s - Iraq = good guy, saving us from Iran, or 80s - Osama Bin Laden = good guy, saving us from Soviet Union). Doesn't mean Osama Bin Laden is a good guy, he clearly isn't and he needs to be stopped. Doesn't mean Saddam Hussein is a good guy either, but the way that this aspect of history is marginalized to such an extent does recall 1984.
Or maybe he was referring to the way War is used and treated in 1984 -- as a way to artificially inflate the economy by creating demand (remember all those floating fortresses that kept getting sunk?) and to focus the masses on things other than the fact that they are unemployed. You know, leaders getting on TV making impassioned speeches about how evil the enemy is...
Admittedly, Lews analogy wasn't the most accurate ever, but it's not as off base as you claim it to be.
Quote:
I have no qualms about pointing out the many non-mentioned possible ulterior motives of Germany and France, since the critics of regime change have been bringing up the USA?s possible ulterior motives ad nauseam. Moreover there is a HUGE difference between what I stated and what they have stated. I honor there right to have ulterior motives and chose to sit out?on the other hand those who are critics of the regime change demand that other sovereign nations submit to their wishes. My view honors individuality?the other view wants complete control and to annihilate a nation?s sovereignty?.big difference there.
Wait, I'm really confused here. You can't have it both ways.
Whatever else Iraq may be, it is still a sovereign nation. If you argue that there isn't the right to control or annihilate a nation's sovereignty than 1. Iraq has every right to have the weapons it may or may not possess (and, more to the point, pre-emptively use them against us if they feel we are threatening them, which we are) 2. France has every right to trade with said nation and to do whatever they feel is necessary to protect their financial interests and 3. Germany has every right to use the issue for political gain.
The "right" to attack Iraq can only exist in a world which controls sovereignty.
Now, I believe the US, with the UN's approval has that right. I still maintain that it is a bad idea to exersize that right. I also maintain that France and Germany have the right to oppose such action, whatever their motives are and quite frankly, I applaud them for actually (apparently) taking a freakin' stand for once(something Europe has a tendency not to do).
|
|
csarmi
Supreme Hero
gets back
|
|
posted February 08, 2003 01:09 AM |
|
Edited By: csarmi on 7 Feb 2003
|
Quote:
So much for unilateral….lol…I thought the EU was all against us except Britain!
Well, the EU is all against you I guess. I am from Hungary and I can tell that almost everybody here is against the war.
The fact that our prime minister signed this letter is a shame. He shouldn't have done it.
I think this action was prepared by the USA and they either bought/threatened us.
Quote:
“Reading your propaganda-parrot-like posting, I feel strongly reminded of Orwell´s "1984".”
LOL have you even read 1984? If so you really missed the whole point. The story was about communists dictators...
This is where I almost stopped reading. Try to read that book again. It wasn't about communists at all.
|
|
CB_Duke
Hired Hero
Gamer
|
|
posted February 08, 2003 02:46 AM |
|
|
All wars occured for resources and USA goverment is not exception they are the most aggressive aggressor.
Only big money stands behind declaration abut mass attack weapon in Iraq because control over petroleum will add big power above middle-asia and independence from world oil prices is the first and only.
____________
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted February 08, 2003 06:49 AM |
|
Edited By: dArGOn on 8 Feb 2003
|
PH you make doubting Thomas look like a wide eyed believer in UFO’s. Nothing will obviously convince you as you chose to remain skeptical. To suggest that the USA would fabricate conversations…well then there is no evidence that will ever convince you as you can always say it is fabricated. If they showed a picture of Saddam kissing a nuclear arm…you could still insist it was fabricated. So lets drop the charade and just admit…you refuse to believe no matter what anyone shows you.
Quote
“ Interesting, so do many other nations that we happily assume won't use the same weapons for chemical purposes. “
Ummm I am sorry do these “other nations” have a UN resolution and binding agreement from the leader/ruler that he will not produce missiles that can reach that distance?
Quote
“Actually having had some small chance to see some of these pictures of these camps, it's of some interest as to how exactly it has been determined what their specific purpose are as this is not clear from the photos I have seen”
There again…you refuse evidence…what do you expect a big sign with neon pink letters that say “WMD production plant”? Geez have the honor to just admit you will doubt all evidence.
Quote
“Overall from what I've seen and read, it's far from overly convincing evidence by itself, more of a case of you having to trust Powell and American sources that what they say is chemical and dangerous is so.”
Of course not you are a skeptic. When we take over Iraq and find all these WMD you will then possibly retort…”America planted those”. No use, no use.
Quote
“As I've said all long, he's probably got some, probably hiding them, probably will use them when (note not if, there's no way in hell GWB will not invade now) an invasion is launched and not before.”
Why would you think he probably has them given that evidence that states such you doubt?
Quote
“ I would have liked powell to come up with some more convincing evidence than what he has.”
What exactly would convince you? Particularly since you have stated and insinuated that the evidence could be fabricated?
Quote
“Hmmmmm, I´ve made a test and both entered [+"mccarthy" +"big brother"] and [+communism +"big brother"] into googlefight, and guess what happened? Mccarthy won by 19100 to 8980! “
LOL leave it to you to be losing an argument about a book your brought up…1984 and then try to defend your position of a google search and “big brother”. You really seem to have an inability to admit when you are mistaken.
Quote
“ At the time when the book was published, "big brother" may have had the face of Stalin, but that doesn´t make it a book about communism only.”
Of course we can draw our own extractions and conclusions about 1984, but we are expanding upon the authors intentions…if he had intended it as a general book on totalitarianism he could of stated so, left communism out of it, and left capitalism out of it….simple enough. You are trying to change his perspective and words through the liberal glasses you wear…distort, twist, change till it fits your viewpoint. Given that Orwell/Blair goes to great lengths to describe each of those political systems his intentions are obvious…if you want to read things into his words…that is your right…but understand you distorting his intentions to give it the spin you would prefer.
Quote
“In The Road to Wigan Pier from 1936 Orwell writes: “
I haven’t read The Road to Wigan Peir…so I won’ t comment on it specifics. Having said that I can’t help but once again notice that the subject at hand is 1984…you have a difficult sticking to the subject when your viewpoint is obviously weak. Moving on….lets even take your word for it and he wanted to be a socialists…. Well it would be a reasonable to look at years of writing…”Wigan Pier” written while he was very young in 1937 and “1984“ after he had grown and matured in 1949….over a decade of wisdom he had accrued and come to his senses that socialism and communism are dangerous indeed. Much the same as Ronald Reagan and William Bennet started out as democrats…once they had matured and recognized the reality of the world they became some of the greatest advocates and thinkers for the conservative cause. You to may yet evolve into a conservative…there is always hope
This is a very insightful statement I found on National Review:
“I firmly support a war against Iraq, but it's vital that the people have a right to oppose it, both as a matter of moral and political principle, and as a matter of medium- and long-term practicality. Today, the war is, I think, wise. But what if it stops being wise? Or what if I'm wrong even now? A democracy needs an opposition, especially in time of war, precisely to keep the government honest, and to point to whatever errors (or possible errors) it finds in the government's actions.”
We need intelligent conversation from both sides of the table…or in the case of this journalist…it is imperative that we have it.
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted February 08, 2003 06:57 AM |
|
Edited By: dArGOn on 8 Feb 2003
|
Quote
“yet America is considering a unilateral attack on iraq anyway.”
The ignorance level remains at an explosive point. Please help me know how a unanimous UN resolution for attacking is unilateral?….please help me understand how 18 European nations actively support a regime change is unilateral? Do you know that “unilateral” means “one”. Here is some basic mathematics and logic….“one” does not equal more than “one”.
Quote
“U.S. is the country that will have in the end destroyed the u.n.'s credibilty”
The UN is completely uncredible..they issue resolution after resolution with no intention of following up…they are inept and defunct. Only after Bush’s moving speech did they unanimously support the USA’s position…but even so they remain weak on the follow up. May the UN dissolve as it is a scary group with no purpose other then double park in New York city.
Quote
“10 million are homeless?”
hmm how shall I say this politely….your ignorance knows no bounds….there is not 10 million homeless not by a long shot.
Quote
“think everyone wud be happier if the us worried about its own borders for a change and quit worrying about what goes ojn in other countries.”
Hmm that was the exactly same short sighted viewpoint that kept USA out of WWII for too long. I won’t disparage Canada though it is tempting.
Quote
“The problem here is that you have to consider the effect that actions will have in the future as well. do you think an attack on iraq is going to anger muslim extremists?”
So in attacking Germany in WWII…would you have been as concerned about all the anger from white extremists? Guess we shouldn’t of taken care of Germany….my gosh the white extremist might actually get really mad and kill us all.
Quote
“when clinton was in power republicans did everything in ther power to hinder his ability to govern with things not relative to politics yet with this war on terrorism”
Hmm and I guess the fact that Clinton was handed OBL on a silver platter on 2 separate occasions, but did NOTHING about it is the fault of republicans? I guess that Clinton didn’t even bother to visit the Twin Towers when they were bombed during his presidency is the fault of the republicans? I love when liberals show how truly ignorant they area about history and world events.
Quote
“Wait, I'm really confused here. You can't have it both ways.
Whatever else Iraq may be, it is still a sovereign nation”:
Bort you surprise me here…I guess your UN position colors the scene…..you are an intelligent person…anyway let me show the big difference….does a human have the right to freedom in America (or any democratic nation for that matter)? Yep. Can that right be taken from him….yep if he commits a crime. Does a human have a right to vote in America? Absolutely….can it be taken from him….yep if he is a criminal. Saddam is in violation of the terms of surrender, in violation of the UN resolutions and proved he is a danger to humanity. Ergo Saddam loses his rights the same a criminal losses their rights. Moreover a nation can only be sovereign if there are free elections IMO.
I really get perplexed how so many people think the UN has some extra special wisdom and super duper powers. They are useless and ineffective. Strong UN supporters are in my opinion against America and a nations sovereignty….what is the purpose of having a nation with the benevolent UN to guide our way? What is the purpose of having a president? We might as well become a colony of the all knowing…all wise UN. UN is BIG GOVERNMENT to the extreme…it is truly frightening what they might evolve into.
Quote
“ France has every right to trade with said nation and to do whatever they feel is necessary to protect their financial interests”
No France does not have a right to support a murdering terrorist…in law that would be called aiding and abetting a criminal. By your logic Switzerland would have had the right to sell gas to kill the Jews in Germany…really quite absurd.
Quote
“Germany has every right to use the issue for political gain.”
I said the same thing…it is Germany’s right….disgusting but still their right.
Quote
“Well, the EU is all against you I guess.”
Dude pick up a newspaper sometime….man the this thread has the all time ignorant level of any thread in the history of man (save the KKK chat room). 18 of European countries are for regime change….only about 4 are against it….could you please get educated on the subject.
Quote
“[1984] It wasn't about communists at all.”
ROFLOL…where do you people come from. This thread is getting beyond redemption. That so many people can be so amazingly uninformed is truly incredible. Did I some how slip into “the earth is flat” thread…by the abundant ignorance I would think so.
If you don’t think we should do a regime change…more power to you (Bort has expressed the position well)….if there were actually more logical debate this thread might actually be informative….to bad we seem to only be getting well….much less then logical.
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted February 08, 2003 06:30 PM |
|
|
You would like "1984" to be an anti-communist novel because this fits well into your world view. And I really pity you for your inability to see what´s obvious because your narrow mind is in the way.
I´ve just taken a look at 8 different Orwell biographies from the internet. Remarkably, 8 of these 8 say that while Animal Farm is a parody on Stalinism, "1984" is a dystopia that reflected on Orwell´s fear of totalitarism in general.
Here are a few examples:
http://www.k-1.com/Orwell/bio.htm
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Jorwell.htm
http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/gorwell.htm
Quote:
Moving on….lets even take your word for it and he wanted to be a socialists….
You do not need my word on it, every Orwell biography in this universe says that he was a passionate socialist, and the more detailed ones even inform you that he fought for the United Workers Marxist Party militia.
Quote:
over a decade of wisdom he had accrued and come to his senses that socialism and communism are dangerous indeed.
Just keep on strongly believing in that, and it might become reality. There is not a single source that indicates such a thing. Maybe Orwell has grown wings and taken a trip to Mars.
Quote:
I said the same thing…it is Germany’s right….disgusting but still their right.
Schröder having used the Iraq issue for populistic purposes (and against his own convictions) is an allegation just like the one that says: Bush wants a war with Iraq for the oil and to distract from inner political problems. I wonder which of these would be more disgusting, if it were true?
____________
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted February 08, 2003 10:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You would like "1984" to be an anti-communist novel because this fits well into your world view. And I really pity you for your inability to see what´s obvious because your narrow mind is in the way.
I´ve just taken a look at 8 different Orwell biographies from the internet. Remarkably, 8 of these 8 say that while Animal Farm is a parody on Stalinism, "1984" is a dystopia that reflected on Orwell´s fear of totalitarism in general.
dArGoN probably confused the two because most of the communist governments to date have been totalitarian.
btw- I think you have a narrow mind yourself on some issues, like politics.
____________
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted February 09, 2003 12:10 AM |
|
Edited By: dArGOn on 8 Feb 2003
|
Quote
“You would like "1984" to be an anti-communist novel because this fits well into your world view. And I really pity you for your inability to see what´s obvious because your narrow mind is in the way. “
Narrow mind...lol...interesting....I provide evidence in my Feb 7 post giving EXACT words from the book and you do not...so who has the narrow mind..lol. I went straight to the source of 1984 and provided you verbatim transcript from the book that show it was about tyrannical communism/socialism. Maybe if you were to actually look at the transcript you could provide evidence to fit your fleeting theory that it isn't about socialism/communism.
While 1984 is undoubtedly about tyrannical communism, Orwell did go through political changes over his lifetime. He started out as a police working for the British Empire as an imperialist. He then became somewhat of an anarchist. Then he then found a kinship with the poverty situations that he was exposed to and became a socialist with leanings towards communism.
“Two of Orwell's best books grew out of his devotion to the poor and politically powerless: The Road to Wigan Pier (1937) and Homage to Catalonia (1938) Later in his relatively short life, Orwell worked as a journalist and grew more and more disillusioned with the methods of Communism.”
That is when Animal Farm and 1984 were written…both critiques of communism. Overall Orwell remained an undogmatic conflicted socialist.
|
|
csarmi
Supreme Hero
gets back
|
|
posted February 09, 2003 12:57 AM |
|
Edited By: csarmi on 8 Feb 2003
|
1, You must be blind if you really think that 1984 has anything to do with Communism. But you have all the right to close your eyes.
2, Do you really think that people in Europe are with the US in this conflict? Open your eyes!
Governments are another issue. US diplomacy works well. Our leaders are too weak to open their mouth and say no.
Sorry, english is not my first language and I just miss the words to express myself and describe the situation.
So I'll try to make it short.
We have enough of the US and its stupid politics.
What you are doing about Iraq is just disgusting and scaring. Even dangerous - very dangerous.
One more thing to add. It is not Iraq that should be taken out. It is the US. That insane country is more of a danger for the world peace.
If I am being too harsh, that is beacuse it is 01:03 here, I am very tired and my english is just too bad.
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted February 09, 2003 03:41 AM |
|
|
Quote:
We have enough of the US and its stupid politics.
What you are doing about Iraq is just disgusting and scaring. Even dangerous - very dangerous.
Yes it is dangerous, but is even more so not to do anything.
Quote:
One more thing to add. It is not Iraq that should be taken out. It is the US. That insane country is more of a danger for the world peace.
Hhmmmmmmm..., the idea for the U.N.(whose job it is to hold peace) came from Harry Truman after WW II, an AMERICAN president. Iraq obviously has things that the U.N. said it shouldn't, that is clear and anyone who doesn't listen to the evidence is just ignorant. And anyone who says Iraq is a soverign nation and can make it's own decisions is full of (poo). Iraq surrendered in 1991, they lost their soverignenty (is that a word).
____________
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted February 09, 2003 05:06 AM |
|
|
Quote
"One more thing to add. It is not Iraq that should be taken out. It is the US. That insane country is more of a danger for the world peace."
Well that statment speaks volumes about its author and to many people in the anti-regime change crowd. Incredible.
|
|
this_other_guy
Famous Hero
{0_o} heh...
|
|
posted February 09, 2003 05:24 AM |
|
|
I reckon that the civilians of Iraq should be left alone- If the US wants to rid the dictator and his government peacefully and democratically, fine. I couldn't care less. But if (and very likely) the US is to rid Saddam & Co. by nukeing the innocent Iraqi populus, then I believe we should all be against it.
____________
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
|
|
reynaert
Adventuring Hero
Nicknamed the Fox
|
|
posted February 09, 2003 10:55 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Hhmmmmmmm..., the idea for the U.N.(whose job it is to hold peace) came from Harry Truman after WW II, an AMERICAN president.
Not exactly.... After the FIRST world war there was already an international agency like the UN. But it debated too much and let some extra world war break out. I don't know the English name...
____________
http://guardiansgrove.com/
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
