Which one is more intellectual of being anti-war or anti-occupation?

Question

Let's say if the war we are talking about is "Iraq war".

http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=113221&ran=130691&tref=po

http://www.appealforredress.org/

Hi Ruth. What is in there illogical?

Answer 1

Neither. It is selfish to want, as well as to not want. It is intellectual to support, as well as to not support. Your political position does not confer any status of intelligence. It merely states you have a position.

Answer 2

There is not much difference between war & occuoation. The biggets d ifferancr is during war we are shoting people instead of telling them what to do. I believe we are occupiares of Bosina.The war is over but we are still there. I guess that is ok because that was a Democrat war.Iraq is a Republican war so the Dems want to quit & run.Both wars are about the same thing. The Jerk in charge of Bosnia was killing people who were not of his religion & Saddem was killing people who would not bow down to him. Bill took this country to war because someone who is not even a American told him to. Just because it was NATO he did it. At least GW went to the UN to get them to do their job but they would not so he did it for them. There are a lot of things GW did wrong in Iraq but at least he did something.Yes he made mistakes but who during war does not. FDR with allowing Russia to take Berlin, Truman firing McArthur, Nixion selling us out in Paris to the N. Vietinese, Bill with letting them drag a US soldier thru the streets in Somila. ALL presedents make mistakes during war times, so give this one some slack..

Answer 3

I don't read links. Yucky virus got me 2 wks ago...

But I had to respond to your question to let you know that it's illogical.

It's not a question of intellect, it is a question of philosophy. I get tired of people calling other people names just because they disagree... In fact, if I had to guess, it starts wars...