quote:

You can always hear the people who are willing to sacrifice somebody else's life. They're plenty loud and they talk all the time. You can find them in churches and schools and newspapers and legislatures and congress. That's their business. They sound wonderful. Death before dishonor. This ground sanctified by blood. These men who died so gloriously. They shall not have died in vain. Our noble dead. Hmmmm. But what do the dead say? Did anybody ever come back from the dead any single one of the millions who got killed did any one of them ever come back and say by god I'm glad I'm dead because death is always better than dishonor? Did they say I'm glad I died to make the world safe for democracy] Did they say I like death better than losing liberty? Did any of them ever say it's good to think I got my guts blown out for the honor of my country? Did any of them ever say look at me I'm dead but I died for decency and that's better than being alive? Did any of them ever say here I am and I've been rotting for two years in a foreign grave but it's wonderful to die for your native land? Did any of them say hurray I died for womanhood and I'm happy see how I sing even though my mouth choked with worms? Nobody but the dead know whether all these things people talk a;bout are worth dying for or not. And the dead can't talk. So the words about noble deaths and sacred blood and honor and such are all put into dead lips by grave robbers and fakes who have no right to speak for the dead. If a man says death before dishonor he is either a fool or a liar because he doesn't know what death is. He isn't able to judge. He only knows about living. He doesn't know anything about dying. If he is a fool and believes in death before dishonor let him go ahead and die. But all the little guys who are too busy to fight should be left alone. And all the guys who say death before dishonor is pure bull the important thing is life before death they should be left alone too. Because the guys who say life isn't worth living without some principle so important you're willing to die for it they are all nuts. And the guys who say you'll see there'll come a time you can't escape you're going to have to fight and die because it'll mean your very life why they are also nuts. They are talking like fools. They are saying that two and two make nothing. They are saying that a man will have to die in order to protect his life. If you agree to fight you agree to die. Now if you die to protect your life you aren't alive anyhow so how is there any sense in a thing like that? A man doesn't say I will starve myself to death to keep from starving. He doesn't say I will spend all my money in order to save my money. He doesn't say I will burn my house down in order to keep it from burning. Why then should he be willing to die for the privilege of living There ought to be at least as much common sense about living and dying as there is about going to the grocery store and buying a loaf of bread. And all the guys who died all the five million or seven million or ten million who went out and died to make the world safe for democracy to make the world safe for words without meaning how did they feel about it just before they died? How did they feel as they watched their blood pump out into the mud? How did they feel when the gas hit their lungs and began eating them all away? How did they feel as they lay crazed in hospitals and looked death straight in the face and saw him come and take them? I! the thing they were fighting for was important enough to die for then it was also important enough for them to be thinking about it in the last minutes of their lives. That stood to reason. Life is awfully important so if you've given it away you'd ought to think with all your mind in the last moments of your life about the thing you traded it for. So did all those kids die thinking of democracy and freedom and liberty and honor and the safety of the home and the stars and stripes forever? You're goddamn right they didn't. They died crying in their minds like little babies. They forgot the thing they were fighting for the things they were dying for. They thought about things a man can understand. They died yearning for the face of a friend. They died whimpering for the voice of a mother a father a wife a child They died with their hearts sick for one more look at the place where they were born please god just one more look. They died moaning and sighing for life. They knew what was important They knew that life was everything and they died with screams and sobs. They died with only one thought in the* minds and that was I want to live I want to live I want to live. He ought to know. He was the nearest thing to a dead man on earth. He was a dead man with a mind that could still think. He knew all the answers that the dead knew and couldn't think about. He could speak for the dead because he was one of them. He was the first of all the soldiers who had died since the beginning of time who still had a brain left to think with. Nobody could dispute with him. Nobody could prove him wrong. Because nobody knew but he. He could tell all these high-talking murdering sonsofbitches who screamed for blood just how wrong they were. He could tell them mister there's nothing worth dying for I know because I'm dead. There's no word worth your life. I would rather work in a coal mine deep under the earth and never see sunlight and eat crusts and water and work twenty hours a day. I would rather do that than be dead. I would trade democracy for life. I would trade independence and honor and freedom and decency for life. I will give you all these things and you give me the power to walk and see and hear and breathe the air and taste my food. You take the words. Give me back my life. I'm not asking for a happy life now. I'm not asking for a decent life or an honorable life or a free life. I'm beyond that. I'm dead so I'm simply asking for life. To live. To feel. To be something that moves over the ground and isn't dead. I know what death is and all you people who talk about dying for words don't even know what life is. There's nothing noble about dying. Not even if you die for honor. Not even if you die the greatest hero the world ever saw. Not even if you're so great your name will never be forgotten and who's that great? The most important thing is your life little guys. You're worth nothing dead except for speeches. Don't let them kid you any more. Pay no attention when they tap you on the shoulder and say come along we've got to fight for liberty or whatever their word is there's always a word. Just say mister I'm sorry I got no time to die I'm too busy and then turn and run like hell. If they say coward why don't pay any attention because it's your job to live not to die. If they talk about dying for principles that are bigger than life you say mister you're a liar Nothing is bigger than life There's nothing noble in death. What is noble about lying in the ground and rotting. What's noble about never seeing the sunshine again? What's noble about having your legs and arms blown off? What's noble about being an idiot? What's noble about being blind and deaf and dumb? What's noble about being dead. Because when you're dead mister it's all over. It's the end. You're less than a dog less than a rat less than a bee or an ant less than a white maggot crawling around on a dungheap. You're dead mister and you died for nothing. You're dead mister. Dead.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by ******** Seplling don't demonstrate intelligence and educatoin - knowing does.

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis

Again?

Will you stop plagarizing other people's stuff and write your opinion..?

I have some questions for you:

1. Do you think invasion of Iran will be succesfull? Mission will be accompolished?
2. Do you think its will make world better and more peaceful after invading Iran?
3. How long you think US will remain in Iran? When will this invasion end? And withdrawl begin.. where the end to this? Where is the end to this 'War on Terrorism'?
4. Do you think if US dosent invades Iran than Iran will go ahead and nuke Israel in near future? By near future I mean 20 years.. if the world survives global warming till than..

quote:

Originally posted by Kinezi Again? Will you stop plagarizing other people's stuff and write your opinion..?

What the fuck are you talking about. Thats a quote from Johnny Got His Gun. How you surmised that I was attempting to pass that on as my own writing is beyond me, I thought it was a pretty obvious passage. I think it lends itself to the present situation where we are on the verge of once again starting a war for almost no reason.

quote:

I have some questions for you: 1. Do you think invasion of Iran will be succesfull? Mission will be accompolished?

No. It would be disastrous, and impossible to execute because the troops are simply not available.

quote:

2. Do you think its will make world better and more peaceful after invading Iran?

Absolutely not.

quote:

3. How long you think US will remain in Iran? When will this invasion end? And withdrawl begin.. where the end to this? Where is the end to this 'War on Terrorism'?

I'm still hoping we do not put troops on the ground there or attack, and that we withdraw our covert operations from within the country.

quote:

4. Do you think if US dosent invades Iran than Iran will go ahead and nuke Israel in near future? By near future I mean 20 years.. if the world survives global warming till than..

No, I don't. If Iran nuked Israel, they or the US would almost certainly reciprocate.



Once again, I have no idea why you think that just because we don't agree on certain things, all of my opinions are automatically contrary to yours. Your inability to see anything objectively on this forum makes for pretty poor discussion, I'm sure everyone else would agree.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by ******** Seplling don't demonstrate intelligence and educatoin - knowing does.

Well okay than, you seems to be sensible.. get undressed and camp putside white house.. PROTEST!! You Americans dont protest.. thats the whole problem.. stop this or it will get back to you.. and only you Americans can do this.. Least you can do is throw an egg on Bush or smash his face with a pie.. that would be enough to stop the invasion of Iran. Is that asking for too much?

quote:

Originally posted by Kinezi Well okay than, you seems to be sensible.. get undressed and camp putside white house.. PROTEST!! You Americans dont protest.. thats the whole problem.. stop this or it will get back to you.. and only you Americans can do this.. Least you can do is throw an egg on Bush or smash his face with a pie.. that would be enough to stop the invasion of Iran. Is that asking for too much?

I've been to 3 anti-war protests in Los Angeles, one of them attended by about 70,000. Again, you stereotype and label far too much for my liking. Most Americans are indeed lazy, intellectually stagnant, and show little to no interest in politics, so for the rest of us it is an uphill battle. Our best hope is Obama winning this election. It really is.

Also, at this point I very much doubt we would put much more than special forces on the ground in Iran, we simply don't have the troops for anything else. Cheney & Co appear to want to do targeted air-strikes on Iranian nuclear and military infrastructure, there is even evidence that they monitored Israeli bunker-busting strikes during the war with Lebanon to see how effective they might be on concrete fortified installations, like the ones in Iran.

The real problem with America is that we have allowed the right to re-frame every debate and every issue into their own terms so that nothing appears blatantly wrong like it does for the rest of the world. Guantanamo, torture, climate change, tax cuts, social programs, iraq, iran, etc...

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by ******** Seplling don't demonstrate intelligence and educatoin - knowing does.

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis The real problem with America is that we have allowed the right to re-frame every debate and every issue into their own terms so that nothing appears blatantly wrong like it does for the rest of the world. Guantanamo, torture, climate change, tax cuts, social programs, iraq, iran, etc...

Just remember what John McCain's campaign has told us: electing Barack Obama would give us four more years of Bush!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/...b_n_113098.html

___________________

^as so would electing Mccain!

Talks on Iran's nuclear plans end in deadlock

quote:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07...iran.php?page=2 GENEVA: International talks on Iran's nuclear ambitions ended in deadlock over the weekend, despite the Bush administration's decision to reverse policy and send a senior U.S. official to the table for the first time. The presence of William Burns, the under secretary of state for political affairs, represented one of the most important encounters between Iran and the United States since relations were cut after the Iranian seizure of the U.S. Embassy in 1979. It came as part of a moment of rare unity among the negotiating partners - the United States, France, Britain, Germany, Russia and China - who pressed Iran to accept compromise. But Iran responded with a written document that failed to address the key issue: international demands that it stop enriching uranium. Iranian diplomats reiterated before the talks that they considered that issue nonnegotiable. Specifically, the world powers wanted Iran to accept a formula known as "freeze-for-freeze" to break the deadlock, under which Iran would not add to its nuclear program and the United States and other nations would not seek new sanctions for six weeks to pave the way for formal negotiations. The formula was originally offered to Iran last year and presented again last month as part of a new proposal ultimately to give Iran economic and political incentives if it stops producing enriched uranium. But officials involved in the negotiations Saturday said that when they repeatedly pressed the Iranians to say whether they could accept the idea, the question was evaded every time. We still didn't get the answer we were looking for," the European Union foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, said in a news conference after several hours of talks, held in Geneva's City Hall. Solana reiterated an earlier deadline, given before the talks, that the Iranians had two weeks to formally respond to the proposal. At the news conference, Saeed Jalili, chief negotiator for Iran, refused to answer whether Iran would accept a freeze, however temporary, of its uranium enrichment program, but called the negotiating process a "very beautiful endeavor" with a result that he hoped would eventually be "beautiful to behold." On Sunday, Reuters reported, the official IRNA news agency quoted President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad describing the talks as part of a number of "forward-moving negotiations." Burns did not speak privately with Jalili. But during the morning meeting, he said that the United States was serious in its support for the six-power process and serious that Iran must suspend its production of enriched uranium, the State Department said. He told his negotiating partners after the talks that the United States would push for new punitive sanctions at the UN Security Council in September, one participant in the meeting said. The meeting Saturday was the highest-level encounter between the two countries during the Bush administration, which once branded Iran part of an "axis of evil" and has not ruled out military action against Iran because of its nuclear ambitions. It comes as the Bush administration, in its final months, has told some of its closest allies that the United States was moving forward with a plan to establish a U.S. diplomatic presence in Tehran for the first time since the rupture in bilateral relations in 1979. But for some, the Americans have made a diplomatic gesture with Burns's participation at a moment that is hard to understand. America's negotiating partners, particularly Britain, had wanted a U.S. presence when they traveled to Tehran last month to present an enhanced package of incentives. That moment, officials said, would have been both meaningful and more logical. Instead, Burns came to the table at a time when the Iranians were giving their reply, and there had never been a strong signal that it was going to be different from the past. Despite the shift in U.S. willingness to talk, one point of policy clearly has not changed: the Bush administration wants to avoid the impression that it is negotiating with Iran before it suspends its production of enriched uranium, which can be used to make electricity or to fuel bombs. Even the subject of a joint photograph was in dispute. The only one accepted by the U.S. side showed all parties at the table. The Americans objected to any photo of Solana and Jalili at a joint news conference with Burns and the other participants standing behind them. Complicating the diplomacy was that before the talks began Saturday, the six powers were not united on how to proceed. The U.S. delegation had told its partners that Burns's appearance was a one-time event and that Iran had two weeks to decide whether to accept the "freeze-for-freeze" idea. Germany, Russia and China, by contrast, argued that there should be time to explore the negotiating track with Iran. There were other disagreements among the six powers as well. Both France and Britain have argued that there should be a precise definition of what the Iranians would have to freeze to open the way to formal talks. For example, there is no definition of whether Iran would simply have to keep its production of enriched uranium at current levels or whether it would also have to stop making components and spare parts for the centrifuges that enrich the uranium. The U.S. delegation rejected the idea of spending time worrying about definitions, insisting that it was more important to stick to the six-week deadline for initial discussions before Iran would stop enriching uranium and formal talks could begin. But those disagreements evaporated during the talks. The six powers presented a united front in pushing the Iranians to give a clear answer on whether they were willing to make the good-faith gesture of halting new nuclear activity to pave the way for formal talks. Surprising to some, given Russia's traditional support of Iran, the Russian negotiator, Sergei Kisliak, was particularly pointed in his questioning, saying that a way to avoid deepening the impasse had to be found, one participant said. Iranian intransigence will make it more difficult politically for the Bush administration to move forward with a plan to put a U.S. diplomatic presence in Iran. Still, there is a reluctance to abandon talks with Iran. Last November, Ahmadinejad said that Iran was pursuing its nuclear program and that negotiations were out of the question.

Looks like history is about to repeat itself again.

Iran will say no and the US will claim diplomacy has failed and war is the only option.

___________________
Mystic Mind - DJ Mixes
http://soundcloud.com/mystic-mind

Facebook page
https://www.facebook.com/DJMysticMind

very good response from George Galloway

___________________
Mystic Mind - DJ Mixes
http://soundcloud.com/mystic-mind

Facebook page
https://www.facebook.com/DJMysticMind

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer very good response from George Galloway

That caller reminds of a few in this forum..That sounds like a great radio show. Gee, a representative who actually talks to the people, and debates with them. Isn't that so much to ask for?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton That caller reminds of a few in this forum..That sounds like a great radio show. Gee, a representative who actually talks to the people, and debates with them. Isn't that so much to ask for?

A lot of them do. Robert Wexler (D-FL) is particularly well known for his town hall meetings once a month.

___________________