Quote:
|
No, Wolf is wrong, as I've pointed out.
|
If you're interested in contributing to an interesting debate or providing interesting conversation, then say something else besides this ridiculous statement.
BTW, assuption boy, I'm too old to volunteer and additionally, am not pro-war. To me, the best option (yes, that means the one that I would favor above all else) would be the newly discussed option of Exile for Saddam and family, and *no* war. Unlike MANY protester's beliefs, America's desire is not to go kill Iraqi children. It's to change Saddam's regime, plain and simple. And if war does happen, I don't think it will go smoothly but it won't be anything like Vietnam, (of course, mostly due to technology), but the outcome WILL be different. (If you think Saddam's regime will still be in power at the end of the 'war', then you're wrong.) America might not 'win', if winning implies super low casualties, or status quo within the international community. However, the regime change in Iraq will happen, as opposed to what happened in Vietnam. If you believe that Saddam's regime will be in place after a full scale military conflict, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell.
By the way, did you read the article or visit the source of this media conspiracy? It's certainly not pro war and seems to be quite pro peace. Or is that just a front? Unless you believe that it's a front, I don't think you even LOOKED.
I don't know what else to say. You came out with some statements saying "Congratulations, you've just fallen for a media scam" to anybody that believes that a peace protester really did this damage. Aside from the fact that I believe you're quite wrong, you've got to realize people will respond the way they did. And they don't neccessarily deserve the "So are you just bad at this? Or do you have some kind of agenda?" crap.
-mike