|
Post by mushroom on Mar 1, 2003 22:08:32 GMT -5
Well, yes; but whoever started it, be it either you or your sister, they somehow provoked the other, right? It's the same thing...only, we have no way of knowing who started it all. So instead of blaming them both, I think we should blame neither. That is my opinion, anyway The provokee responded to the provoker, didn't she? Maybe my little sister called me a brat first or vice versa instead of trying to find a solution to the problem, but then I responded by calling her names instead of agreeing to quit humming if she'll let me change the CD playing or whatever. We both made the situation bad and we both knew that what we were doing was going to end up badly, and we both could have done something different to change it. Therefore, we were both at fault, no matter who started it. Maybe 'blaming' isn't exactly the right word. But both the U.S. and Iraq are at fault, and either could have and probably still can take steps to find a solution that will satisfy both parties. No, it wouldn't be. Bombing kills both innocent and guilty people, and at the moment, I don't think it's worth the risk, regardless. I think we should send in a few spies to make absolutely positively 100% sure that they have 1) weapons of mass destruction and 2) are planning on using them. If no to either one, then I think we should hold back. This thing is getting pretty complicated, and until we know for sure, there is nothing we can do. Like I said, it isn't worth the risk. Firstly, I'm sure we have sent in spies--but I'm equally sure Iraq has security that'll make a spy's job a heck of a lot more difficult than it might seem. And secondly: if we wait, we could end up with thousands of deaths in several events. Maybe we don't know for sure, and maybe war is risky, but waiting too long could very well also be risky.
|
|
|
Post by TK on Mar 1, 2003 22:11:01 GMT -5
*laughs out loud* It doesn't, does it? It's just FAR to big and confusing for our little minds! I actually didn't know too much about the situation until know. So yeah, it's pretty darn confusing. But these things always work out. Let's just hope for the best...
|
|
|
Post by Smiley on Mar 1, 2003 22:13:32 GMT -5
The provokee responded to the provoker, didn't she? Maybe my little sister called me a brat first or vice versa instead of trying to find a solution to the problem, but then I responded by calling her names instead of agreeing to quit humming if she'll let me change the CD playing or whatever. We both made the situation bad and we both knew that what we were doing was going to end up badly, and we both could have done something different to change it. Therefore, we were both at fault, no matter who started it. Yes, that is true...but it is also possible that the provokee TRIED to solve it, and the provoker just kept pushing and pushing until the provokee just couldn't take it anymore? I don't know, it's all very confusing! But I can see what you mean, and it does make sense. There seem to be a million possibilties and counting...but it will probably end up being something way out there that we haven't even thought of. With every thought, I get more and more headaches...there seems to be no end!
|
|
|
Post by Smiley on Mar 1, 2003 22:14:51 GMT -5
I actually didn't know too much about the situation until know. So yeah, it's pretty darn confusing. But these things always work out. Let's just hope for the best... Er...well, not always. But yes, all we can do, no matter how much we think, is hope...and try to see the light at the end of the tunnel, whether it's really there or not
|
|
|
Post by mushroom on Mar 1, 2003 22:16:49 GMT -5
I actually didn't know too much about the situation until know. So yeah, it's pretty darn confusing. But these things always work out. Let's just hope for the best... It will all work out for the best eventually, or at least I believe it will. But 'for the best' could be decades away, with everyone in the U.S. dying from the radiation from and the initial blasts of dirty bombs, and the whole world being contaminated with some nasty biological weapon that ends up leaving half the population dead before 'for the best' works out. If we want it to work out for the best for us, in our lifetimes, we have to do something about it, or at least know how we believe 'for the best' will be brought.
|
|
|
Post by TK on Mar 1, 2003 22:19:28 GMT -5
It will all work out for the best eventually, or at least I believe it will. But 'for the best' could be decades away, with everyone in the U.S. dying from the radiation from and the initial blasts of dirty bombs, and the whole world being contaminated with some nasty biological weapon that ends up leaving half the population dead before 'for the best' works out. If we want it to work out for the best for us, in our lifetimes, we have to do something about it, or at least know how we believe 'for the best' will be brought. It might not work out for the best. I meant it will work out, so it will end. Whether it's in our favour or not, I don't know. We can only hope.
|
|
|
Post by Princess Ember Mononoke on Mar 1, 2003 22:19:33 GMT -5
Yes, that is true...but it is also possible that the provokee TRIED to solve it, and the provoker just kept pushing and pushing until the provokee just couldn't take it anymore? I don't know, it's all very confusing! But I can see what you mean, and it does make sense. There seem to be a million possibilties and counting...but it will probably end up being something way out there that we haven't even thought of. With every thought, I get more and more headaches...there seems to be no end! As my mom would say: if it isn't "given to you" to think up answers for the world's problems, there's no need to stress about it. Yes, I have great parents. My dad's a genius and my mom's a sage. *beams*
|
|
|
Post by Patjade on Mar 1, 2003 22:21:07 GMT -5
Actually, it has nothing to do with 9-11, or hatred. It's all about oil. We say they might have nukes, well guess what, SO DOES SOUTH KOREA! Umm, er, that's North Korea. I live in South Korea. But that's OK, I know what you mean. And since I HAVE posted, I might as well give my two cents worth, expecting change in return. It is one thing to try and get the people responsible for 911. But Iraq isn't it. Bush has been looking for an excuse to take on Iraq since he was elected. The stupid terrorists just handed him the smallest of threads to "validate" his position. I think of President Bush as Captain Ahab, and Hussein as Moby Dick. Bush is obsessed, and nothing will alter him from taking on Saddam except removing him from a position to act. Bush blames Saddam for his father's defeat to Clinton, real or imagined. This "he tried to kill my Daddy" BS is delusional. Bush is obsessed, plain and simple, and the people under him are either picked for having similar viewpoints, or are very afraid to oppose him, and being condemned as consorting with the enemy. It's as if we elected Joe McCarthy as president (Kids, consult your history books about "Tailgunner Joe"). We have a society that is rapidly devolving to that of Nazi Germany of the 1930's, and the world is seeing US as the "Bad Guys". It's about time people started finding out what the Constitution and Bill of Rights really stand for, instead of trivializing them and bending thim this way and that to fit your personal whims. As far as I am concerned, the terrorists have won. They wanted to destroy the United States' status as a free and open country, and the leadership of the USA have done that for them. Good job, guys. The problem with being free and open, is that there are risks. You leave yourself open. The best thing would have been to clean it up and continue to be free and open, instead of a bunch of paranoid little cowards hiding behind plastic sheeting and duct tape, wanting to stomp on this and that person for looking/acting/giving the hint of being shady. Excuse me while I go and be sick.
|
|
|
Post by Smiley on Mar 1, 2003 22:21:25 GMT -5
It will all work out for the best eventually, or at least I believe it will. But 'for the best' could be decades away, with everyone in the U.S. dying from the radiation from and the initial blasts of dirty bombs, and the whole world being contaminated with some nasty biological weapon that ends up leaving half the population dead before 'for the best' works out. If we want it to work out for the best for us, in our lifetimes, we have to do something about it, or at least know how we believe 'for the best' will be brought. Yes...that's the scary part. In the next generation, if this is still going on, people will probably just stand idle...and it will get worse...and worse...and worse...but I do have a lighter side of my mind, and I think that it will pass eventually. Someone will die, mark my words, but we knew that long before any of this got so out of hand
|
|
|
Post by TK on Mar 1, 2003 22:21:28 GMT -5
As my mom would say: if it isn't "given to you" to think up answers for the world's problems, there's no need to stress about it. Yes, I have great parents. My dad's a genius and my mom's a sage. *beams* You're right. We're in no opinion to fix the world so there's no point in worrying. Well, yes we should worry but there's no reason we should think it's our job to fix it all.
|
|
|
Post by Princess Ember Mononoke on Mar 1, 2003 22:23:19 GMT -5
or at least know how we believe 'for the best' will be brought. What good would that do? As my mom would say, if a problem can be fixed, there's no reason to worry about it. If it can't, there's no use worrying about it. I apologize for the sudden burst of my weird brand of spirituality, but sitting here looking at this thread is allow me to yet again rediscover what I already know.
|
|
|
Post by mushroom on Mar 1, 2003 22:24:59 GMT -5
Yes, that is true...but it is also possible that the provokee TRIED to solve it, and the provoker just kept pushing and pushing until the provokee just couldn't take it anymore? I don't know, it's all very confusing! But I can see what you mean, and it does make sense. There seem to be a million possibilties and counting...but it will probably end up being something way out there that we haven't even thought of. With every thought, I get more and more headaches...there seems to be no end! The provokee could have walked away or even just ignored the provoker, or, that failing, enlisted the help of others for peaceful negotiation. Once both became provokers, the original provoker could have left at any time as well. And the provokee can't 'not be able to take it anymore'--they can take it if they have so far. The provoker is a threat, but one that could have been easily neutralized by merely leaving and waiting for her anger to dissipate. In U.S./Iraq terms, couldn't the U.S. have taken other measures? Couldn't the U.S. have refused to buy Iraqi oil and tried to convince other countries to do the same? Couldn't the U.S. have spent money on defense rather than offense? Maybe these solutions are no longer viable, but it's too late: if we go to war, the U.S. will have contributed to the escalation of the situation. The U.S. will be at fault. There are situations in which one side is blameless. This isn't one of them.
|
|
|
Post by Smiley on Mar 1, 2003 22:28:30 GMT -5
Umm, er, that's North Korea. I live in South Korea. But that's OK, I know what you mean. And since I HAVE posted, I might as well give my two cents worth, expecting change in return. It is one thing to try and get the people responsible for 911. But Iraq isn't it. Bush has been looking for an excuse to take on Iraq since he was elected. The stupid terrorists just handed him the smallest of threads to "validate" his position. I think of President Bush as Captain Ahab, and Hussein as Moby Dick. Bush is obsessed, and nothing will alter him from taking on Saddam except removing him from a position to act. Bush blames Saddam for his father's deafeat to Clinton, real or imagined. This "he tried to kill my Daddy" BS is delusional. Bush is obsessed, plain and simple, and the people under him are either picked for having similar viewpoints, or are very afraid to oppose him, and being condemned as consorting with the enemy. It's as if we elected Joe McCarthy as president. (Kids, consult your history books about "Tailgunner Joe". We have a society that is rapidly devolving to that of Nazi Germanyof the 1930's, and the world is seeing US as the "Bad Guys". It's about time people started finding out what the Constitution and Bill of Rights really stand for, instead of trivializing them and bending thim this way and that to fit your personal whims. As far as I am concerned, the terrorists have won. They wanted to destroy the United States' status as a free and open country, and the leadership of the USA have done that for them. Good job, guys. The problem with being free and open, is that there are risks. You leave yourself open. The best thing would have been to clean it up and continue to be free and open, instead of a bunch of paranoid little cowards hiding behind plastic sheeting and duct tape, wanting to stomp on this and that person for looking/acting/giving the hint of being shady. Excuse me while I go and be sick. Yes...I agree about the part with plastic and duct tape. My mom told me to tape her up in duct tape if she ever resorted to that. Yet another possibility added to the cart of confusion...total cost: The world. Ugh, I'm getting so many aches from all of this. But I have an opinion, and I want to show it. And with that said, I think I should look and consider other opinions too. I have never thought more in my life...but I think it's worth it. Not exactly sure what I just said, but I think you get the gist...
|
|
|
Post by Patjade on Mar 1, 2003 22:29:03 GMT -5
And the North Korea thing--well, from what I understand, the leaders there haven't been killing off their own people, and they can't not realize that's what they'd be doing if they bombed the U.S. North Korea is the 5 year old kid that wants attention but is largely ignored. He stands in the candy store and watches the adults with money buying the candy, but he is broke. So he causes a scene in hopes someone will pay attention and get him some candy, but it has to be on HIS terms.
|
|
|
Post by Smiley on Mar 1, 2003 22:32:32 GMT -5
The provokee could have walked away or even just ignored the provoker, or, that failing, enlisted the help of others for peaceful negotiation. Once both became provokers, the original provoker could have left at any time as well. And the provokee can't 'not be able to take it anymore'--they can take it if they have so far. The provoker is a threat, but one that could have been easily neutralized by merely leaving and waiting for her anger to dissipate. In U.S./Iraq terms, couldn't the U.S. have taken other measures? Couldn't the U.S. have refused to buy Iraqi oil and tried to convince other countries to do the same? Couldn't the U.S. have spent money on defense rather than offense? Maybe these solutions are no longer viable, but it's too late: if we go to war, the U.S. will have contributed to the escalation of the situation. The U.S. will be at fault. There are situations in which one side is blameless. This isn't one of them. Yes...that is true. I guess that is the way it goes...but it just seems so scary. Now I am thinking: If we go to war, what will happen? Well, nothing good, I presume. We got ourselves mixed up with a bad situation, and now we're about to make it worse...so, here I go: The U.S. is stupid. There, I said it. We should have never started this (if it was us who did) and if we didn't, we should have backed out.
|
|