Think about it. Can these words sum up virtually every single conflict there has ever been in the history of the world?
Big and small. Whether it be a small personal dispute or a major war?
2007-06-27 05:28:09 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Nostrodamus: No **** sherlock we all know it's Pink Floyd I didn't think that I would have to say it. By the way, it is meant to be a generalization. Take away all the politics of most every conflict and it can generally sum up most conflicts. Remember Jr. I said generally.
2007-06-27 05:40:20 · update #1
I love that song. It seems like no matter who you are - It's us and them.
2007-06-27 05:34:42 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Entertainers are usually the last place i seek guidance on matters of warfare
Their views strike me as simplistic and naive
2007-06-27 12:40:40 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
it's a good point. also that song talked about generals and cowardly chicken hawk "leaders" (reminds me of bush and cheney) sending other people to die.
2007-06-27 12:38:58 · answer #3 · answered by Mike H 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
you forgot to credit pink floyd for your question.
by the way, i disagree.
it's people making sweeping generalizations about thousands of years of warfare who are part of the problem.
2007-06-27 12:33:54 · answer #4 · answered by nostradamus02012 7 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Well not only those with and with out, but those who want it all....and more and more
2007-06-27 12:31:31 · answer #5 · answered by penydred 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Maybe if you are an English band know for acid trips.
2007-06-27 12:38:23 · answer #6 · answered by mbush40 6 · 0⤊ 4⤋
add have and have not
2007-06-27 12:33:19 · answer #7 · answered by plhudson01 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋