New Post
Search
Help
ArchivesNew Baby Names Aganist War
Neither last news about war in Iraq, nor Iraqi and American soldiers, nor demonstrations in Europe Oslo, Norway, New Your, London, Great Britain, nor George W Bush and his political position, nor terrorism and world-wide denger. Nothing can stop New Original Baby Names project! Let's make PEACE to let our babies live and grow. If you want you can call your baby like this:
Nowar
Paciterra
Iraquira
Eastiona
Waleaca (WAr LEAds to CAtastrophy )
Vitapaco (m)
Vitapaca (f)
Sabufino (m) SAddam and BUsh FIght for NOthing
Sabufina (f)
Stomesira - STOp the MESs in IRAq
Libeterra - Liberty on the Earth
Nowar
Paciterra
Iraquira
Eastiona
Waleaca (WAr LEAds to CAtastrophy )
Vitapaco (m)
Vitapaca (f)
Sabufino (m) SAddam and BUsh FIght for NOthing
Sabufina (f)
Stomesira - STOp the MESs in IRAq
Libeterra - Liberty on the Earth
1
Replies
Some other name suggestions, in the same spirit:
Capitulanda
Illusionia
Selfdeluda
Cluelessia
Profascista
Insania
Traitoria
Quislingia
Imbecilia
Capitulanda
Illusionia
Selfdeluda
Cluelessia
Profascista
Insania
Traitoria
Quislingia
Imbecilia
1
Actually, this is a...
...very witty response to an anti-war statement.
It's a shame that your wit is overshadowed by your lack of courage for your convictions, that you had to make your statement an anonymous one.
-- Nanaea
...very witty response to an anti-war statement.
It's a shame that your wit is overshadowed by your lack of courage for your convictions, that you had to make your statement an anonymous one.
-- Nanaea
1
A-MEN, Your Satanicness!
I wish more people would "sign" their names to things that disclose their true feelings.
If there was a reasonable reason for not posting the name (such as the person is in hiding for whatever reason), then s/he should use a pseudonym. (I'm not ranting at you, your Satanicness. Just some momzers Saturday who trashed a local park where there was a rally going on [don't remember if it was pro-war or anti-war].)
Phyllis (aka Sidhe Uaine or Gaia Euphoria)
I wish more people would "sign" their names to things that disclose their true feelings.
If there was a reasonable reason for not posting the name (such as the person is in hiding for whatever reason), then s/he should use a pseudonym. (I'm not ranting at you, your Satanicness. Just some momzers Saturday who trashed a local park where there was a rally going on [don't remember if it was pro-war or anti-war].)
Phyllis (aka Sidhe Uaine or Gaia Euphoria)
1
I can't rightfully call myself either "anti-war" or "pro-war", as I can understand the pro and con arguments of both sides.
War has always been the most expedient means of effecting political change -- and effecting political change in Iraq is the goal of the U.S. Granted, expediency isn't the wisest course of action, and no sane person can ever want to see any nation go to war against another. But now that the wheels of war have been set in motion thanks to Republican buttheadedness, my strongest sentiments right now are inclined towards wanting to see this finished as quickly as possible -- with a successful end to Saddam. Stopping the war before Saddam's regime has been successfully toppled, will only result in a worse situation in the Middle East, in my opinion.
And then the next thing I'd like would be to get that fuckhead Bush out of the White House.
-- Nanaea
War has always been the most expedient means of effecting political change -- and effecting political change in Iraq is the goal of the U.S. Granted, expediency isn't the wisest course of action, and no sane person can ever want to see any nation go to war against another. But now that the wheels of war have been set in motion thanks to Republican buttheadedness, my strongest sentiments right now are inclined towards wanting to see this finished as quickly as possible -- with a successful end to Saddam. Stopping the war before Saddam's regime has been successfully toppled, will only result in a worse situation in the Middle East, in my opinion.
And then the next thing I'd like would be to get that fuckhead Bush out of the White House.
-- Nanaea
1
Nobody wants...
Nobody wants Saddam Hussain left in power, but the US involvement in this war is so suspect and so dirty.
I still want this war stopped. If intervention is necessary, it needs to come from the UN. It is time we made some progress in dealing with conflict of action/opinion that does not involve war. And if the US would pay the money it owes to the UN, this might actually be feasible. Instead of spending $400 billion a year (between a tenth and a quarter of which would be enough to end world hunger) on an army which is currently bombing Columbia (as well as Iraq) with little or no justification.
Nor in any previous US intervention have they succeeded in putting in place subsequently a democratic government. Not in fifty years of 'intervention' in more than thirty countries.
I hear that the US have decreed that only US companies will get to rebuild Iraq after the war (let us not even mention oil) - is this a 'just war' or a exercise in propping up the US economy?
No country should be encouraged to enter into a war in which the potential profits for themselves are so great.
I am ashamed of the UK government for supporting this action.
Nobody wants Saddam Hussain left in power, but the US involvement in this war is so suspect and so dirty.
I still want this war stopped. If intervention is necessary, it needs to come from the UN. It is time we made some progress in dealing with conflict of action/opinion that does not involve war. And if the US would pay the money it owes to the UN, this might actually be feasible. Instead of spending $400 billion a year (between a tenth and a quarter of which would be enough to end world hunger) on an army which is currently bombing Columbia (as well as Iraq) with little or no justification.
Nor in any previous US intervention have they succeeded in putting in place subsequently a democratic government. Not in fifty years of 'intervention' in more than thirty countries.
I hear that the US have decreed that only US companies will get to rebuild Iraq after the war (let us not even mention oil) - is this a 'just war' or a exercise in propping up the US economy?
No country should be encouraged to enter into a war in which the potential profits for themselves are so great.
I am ashamed of the UK government for supporting this action.
1
In my opinion the UN is a useless bunch they cant agree on anything Dis-united Nations more like it so i have no confidence in them
War is a terrible thing i agree but so is the regime the Iraqis are living under and Saddam would never give up power peacefully anyone who thinks that is living in cloud Cookoo land he has too much to lose
Yes i wish the UN could have dealt with this situation they should but they dont they just stand by bickering while people are tortured raped and murdered not only in Iraq but many other countries
Yes i was horrified by the images on tv of the bombing of Bagdad but where have all of these thousands of Peace Protesters been while Saddam has been making war on his own people killing hundreds of innocents i dont recall them turning out to protest in such numbers when he killed civilians
Most of the protesters were sitting on their backsides doing and saying nothing (myself included i am ashamed to admit)
I do not want this war people i care about are out there fighting but i have no confidence in a peaceful solution being found
As to the US they are no better or worse than any other country in this violent self promoting world no one can claim the high moral ground in this situation
I am not ashamed of my Govenment Sad maybe that things couldnt have worked out better Angry that the UN couldnt work together for a change
and fed up with people who say they have all the answers but never actually come up with a viable alternative
We can stand by and let Saddam kill everyone who doesnt fit into his idea of things or we can intervene and kill Saddam and all who support him either way people die that is a fact
One last thing I agree the UN should be involved in the rebuilding of Iraq its about time they did something!!!
War is a terrible thing i agree but so is the regime the Iraqis are living under and Saddam would never give up power peacefully anyone who thinks that is living in cloud Cookoo land he has too much to lose
Yes i wish the UN could have dealt with this situation they should but they dont they just stand by bickering while people are tortured raped and murdered not only in Iraq but many other countries
Yes i was horrified by the images on tv of the bombing of Bagdad but where have all of these thousands of Peace Protesters been while Saddam has been making war on his own people killing hundreds of innocents i dont recall them turning out to protest in such numbers when he killed civilians
Most of the protesters were sitting on their backsides doing and saying nothing (myself included i am ashamed to admit)
I do not want this war people i care about are out there fighting but i have no confidence in a peaceful solution being found
As to the US they are no better or worse than any other country in this violent self promoting world no one can claim the high moral ground in this situation
I am not ashamed of my Govenment Sad maybe that things couldnt have worked out better Angry that the UN couldnt work together for a change
and fed up with people who say they have all the answers but never actually come up with a viable alternative
We can stand by and let Saddam kill everyone who doesnt fit into his idea of things or we can intervene and kill Saddam and all who support him either way people die that is a fact
One last thing I agree the UN should be involved in the rebuilding of Iraq its about time they did something!!!
1
Oh please...
"And if the US would pay the money it owes to the UN, this might actually be feasible. "
Oh, please. If the deadbeat UN diplomats and their deadbeat nations would only pay the money they owe to the people of the City of New York, I'd be amazed:
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/news/WABC_020101_deadbeatdiplomats.html
"I hear that the US have decreed that only US companies will get to rebuild Iraq after the war (let us not even mention oil) - is this a 'just war' or a exercise in propping up the US economy?"
Where the heck did you hear that? I tell you, this war in Iraq and the aid to Iraq which will certainly follow is going to COST the taxpayers of the United States in the long run. As it is, there were no provisions in the U.S. budget to pay for this war, and now Dumbass Dubya is proposing tax breaks for U.S. citizens to boost his own sagging popularity, with nary a thought as to how this war is going to be paid for. As for Iraq "propping up" the U.S. economy… The U.S. spends more money and expends more resources in propping up nations which, btw, continue to collectively owe the United States BILLIONS of dollars in unpaid debts. Debts which the U.S. frequently writes off in exchange for various agreements such as The Tropical Forest Conservation Act (PL-105-214), signed into legislation by President Clinton, which forgave 325 million dollars in debt owed by Brazil, Indonesia, Peru, and the Congo provided they put matching amounts of money into their own forest protection trust funds.
"Nor in any previous US intervention have they succeeded in putting in place subsequently a democratic government. Not in fifty years of 'intervention' in more than thirty countries."
I will absolutely agree with you on that. I quite frankly don't care to see my tax dollars used to feed or clothe or defend people who don't have the incentive or wherewithal to set up and maintain their own democratic governments. Enough is enough, already.
-- Nanaea
"And if the US would pay the money it owes to the UN, this might actually be feasible. "
Oh, please. If the deadbeat UN diplomats and their deadbeat nations would only pay the money they owe to the people of the City of New York, I'd be amazed:
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/news/WABC_020101_deadbeatdiplomats.html
"I hear that the US have decreed that only US companies will get to rebuild Iraq after the war (let us not even mention oil) - is this a 'just war' or a exercise in propping up the US economy?"
Where the heck did you hear that? I tell you, this war in Iraq and the aid to Iraq which will certainly follow is going to COST the taxpayers of the United States in the long run. As it is, there were no provisions in the U.S. budget to pay for this war, and now Dumbass Dubya is proposing tax breaks for U.S. citizens to boost his own sagging popularity, with nary a thought as to how this war is going to be paid for. As for Iraq "propping up" the U.S. economy… The U.S. spends more money and expends more resources in propping up nations which, btw, continue to collectively owe the United States BILLIONS of dollars in unpaid debts. Debts which the U.S. frequently writes off in exchange for various agreements such as The Tropical Forest Conservation Act (PL-105-214), signed into legislation by President Clinton, which forgave 325 million dollars in debt owed by Brazil, Indonesia, Peru, and the Congo provided they put matching amounts of money into their own forest protection trust funds.
"Nor in any previous US intervention have they succeeded in putting in place subsequently a democratic government. Not in fifty years of 'intervention' in more than thirty countries."
I will absolutely agree with you on that. I quite frankly don't care to see my tax dollars used to feed or clothe or defend people who don't have the incentive or wherewithal to set up and maintain their own democratic governments. Enough is enough, already.
-- Nanaea
1
A couple of million per country, vs. over a billion owed by the US to the UN?
http://www.clw.org/pub/clw/un/pkdebt.html
Not exactly the same thing. Unpaid embassy debts are fairly standard everywhere.
The US has the highest GDP of any country. As a proportion of GDP it gives the lowest 'catch free' aid of any country in the west. It doesn't even make the top twenty. (The UK doesn't make the top ten. We have nothing to boast about either).
http://www.garretwilson.com/books/p...ationalaid.html
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp
And the question of debt is an interesting one. Given that the US consumes so much more of the world's resources; given that the US fuel 'habit' is entirely dependent on large parts of the world being underdeveloped and using lesser technologies (imagine the impact on the world if India and China consumed resources at the level that the US does) it can be argued that the US (and other western countries) pays only what it owes, and usually barely that.
Read these articles for further information:
http://www.jubilee2000uk.org/ecological_debt/Articles/paradise020502.htm
http://www.jubilee2000uk.org/ecological_debt/Articles/Ecologist_climate_debt.htm
It's all a matter of perspective.
Incidentally, something like fifty percent of US international aid goes to Israel and Egypt - countries with very healthy economies and democracies of their own...
'I will absolutely agree with you on that. I quite frankly don't care to see my tax dollars used to feed or clothe or defend people who don't have the incentive or wherewithal to set up and maintain their own democratic governments. Enough is enough, already.'
http://www.clw.org/pub/clw/un/pkdebt.html
Not exactly the same thing. Unpaid embassy debts are fairly standard everywhere.
The US has the highest GDP of any country. As a proportion of GDP it gives the lowest 'catch free' aid of any country in the west. It doesn't even make the top twenty. (The UK doesn't make the top ten. We have nothing to boast about either).
http://www.garretwilson.com/books/p...ationalaid.html
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp
And the question of debt is an interesting one. Given that the US consumes so much more of the world's resources; given that the US fuel 'habit' is entirely dependent on large parts of the world being underdeveloped and using lesser technologies (imagine the impact on the world if India and China consumed resources at the level that the US does) it can be argued that the US (and other western countries) pays only what it owes, and usually barely that.
Read these articles for further information:
http://www.jubilee2000uk.org/ecological_debt/Articles/paradise020502.htm
http://www.jubilee2000uk.org/ecological_debt/Articles/Ecologist_climate_debt.htm
It's all a matter of perspective.
Incidentally, something like fifty percent of US international aid goes to Israel and Egypt - countries with very healthy economies and democracies of their own...
'I will absolutely agree with you on that. I quite frankly don't care to see my tax dollars used to feed or clothe or defend people who don't have the incentive or wherewithal to set up and maintain their own democratic governments. Enough is enough, already.'
1
And on the lighter side of debate...
This was e-mailed to me by my bro'-in-law in England...
Why Did The Chicken Cross The Road?
George Bush's Answer:
We don't really care why the chicken crossed the road. We just want to know if the chicken is on our side of the road or not. The chicken is either with us or it is against us. There is no middle ground here.
Al Gore's Answer:
I invented the chicken. I invented the road. Therefore, the chicken crossing the road represented the application of these two different functions of government in a new, reinvented way designed to bring greater services to the American people.
Jacques Chirac's Answer:
I need more proof. I dont think the chicken has actually cossed the road - give the chicken 2 more months.
Tony Blairs's Answer:
Whatever Bush said...
CNN's Answer:
We will get back to the chicken soon.
Turkey's Answer:
We will support the chicken..no, we dont...yes, we will...no, we dont...yes, we will...no, we dont...we will assign a corridor.
Pat Buchanan's Answer:
To steal a job from a decent, hard-working American.
John Lennon's Answer:
Just imagine all the chickens crossing roads in peace.
Saddam Hussein's Answer:
This was an unprovoked act of a zionistic rebellion and we were quite justified in cutting the head off of the little idiotic chicken. May the mother of all thunders hit all imperialistic chickens sooner or later.
Israel's Answer:
We retaliated by sending more tanks to the Gaza strip.
Captain Kirk's Answer:
To boldly go where no chicken has gone before.
Albert Einstein's Answer:
Did the chicken really cross the road, or did the road move beneath the chicken?
L.A.P.D.'s Answer:
Give us just ten minutes with the chicken and we'll find out.
This was e-mailed to me by my bro'-in-law in England...
Why Did The Chicken Cross The Road?
George Bush's Answer:
We don't really care why the chicken crossed the road. We just want to know if the chicken is on our side of the road or not. The chicken is either with us or it is against us. There is no middle ground here.
Al Gore's Answer:
I invented the chicken. I invented the road. Therefore, the chicken crossing the road represented the application of these two different functions of government in a new, reinvented way designed to bring greater services to the American people.
Jacques Chirac's Answer:
I need more proof. I dont think the chicken has actually cossed the road - give the chicken 2 more months.
Tony Blairs's Answer:
Whatever Bush said...
CNN's Answer:
We will get back to the chicken soon.
Turkey's Answer:
We will support the chicken..no, we dont...yes, we will...no, we dont...yes, we will...no, we dont...we will assign a corridor.
Pat Buchanan's Answer:
To steal a job from a decent, hard-working American.
John Lennon's Answer:
Just imagine all the chickens crossing roads in peace.
Saddam Hussein's Answer:
This was an unprovoked act of a zionistic rebellion and we were quite justified in cutting the head off of the little idiotic chicken. May the mother of all thunders hit all imperialistic chickens sooner or later.
Israel's Answer:
We retaliated by sending more tanks to the Gaza strip.
Captain Kirk's Answer:
To boldly go where no chicken has gone before.
Albert Einstein's Answer:
Did the chicken really cross the road, or did the road move beneath the chicken?
L.A.P.D.'s Answer:
Give us just ten minutes with the chicken and we'll find out.
1
My family:
Because we accidently left a two-inch square hole in the pen...Here, chick-chick-chick! Come're Curiosity! Houdini! Get over here! Chicky-chick..............................;P
Y :)
Because we accidently left a two-inch square hole in the pen...Here, chick-chick-chick! Come're Curiosity! Houdini! Get over here! Chicky-chick..............................;P
Y :)
1
Ha! This made my day :)
1
Would that be Alfonso Portillo? The guy who agreed last year to stop executions because the Pope asked him nicely? You know, it's always interesting to observe the type of people over whom religious leaders seem to have the most influence.
Anyway, my commiseration to you. Although, you may be better off than we are here in the U.S. Portillo listens to god, but G.W. Bush thinks he *is* god.
-- Nanaea
Anyway, my commiseration to you. Although, you may be better off than we are here in the U.S. Portillo listens to god, but G.W. Bush thinks he *is* god.
-- Nanaea
1
You mean Bush isnt God really God lol someone had better tell Blair
1
And to think i supported him?
Not that i can vote, curses! this is last election, but it's Blair over IDS every time.
Not that i can vote, curses! this is last election, but it's Blair over IDS every time.
1
Yep, that would be the one...
President Portillo. But do not forget that this is primly Catholic country and the vote of every Catholic does make a difference. He is not better than Bush, they are just "different".
President Portillo. But do not forget that this is primly Catholic country and the vote of every Catholic does make a difference. He is not better than Bush, they are just "different".
1
I understand. I've volunteered at the local VA, and I've seen the aftereffects of war can be, but I also volunteer at the International Institute in Milwaukee, and I've seen the aftereffects of "people" like Hussein.
Personally, I've kept myself out of the "discussions" concerning war (pro and anti), but I know people who are in the armed forces over there right now.
Personally, I wouldn't call Bush (to cleanse your terminology a bit) a fookhead because it's derrogatory (sp?) to all true fookheads.
I feel sorriest for the non-human residents of the region (cats, dogs, fish, reptiles, amphibians [if there are amphibians there], and other similar creatures) who can't really escape whatever happens, and/or have been in that particular region so long that they've adapted to the climates and such.
Phyllis (aka Sidhe Uaine or Gaia Euphoria)
Personally, I've kept myself out of the "discussions" concerning war (pro and anti), but I know people who are in the armed forces over there right now.
Personally, I wouldn't call Bush (to cleanse your terminology a bit) a fookhead because it's derrogatory (sp?) to all true fookheads.
I feel sorriest for the non-human residents of the region (cats, dogs, fish, reptiles, amphibians [if there are amphibians there], and other similar creatures) who can't really escape whatever happens, and/or have been in that particular region so long that they've adapted to the climates and such.
Phyllis (aka Sidhe Uaine or Gaia Euphoria)
1
I agree, it would be a crime to leave things half done. However I feel it would have been more efficient and less costly in terms of lives and money for Bush to have hired an assassin in the first place. By the way, how are the Democrats reacting to this mess? Alas, they seem to be below the radar screen...Have they lost their bollocks? Why are the missing this opportunity to make some constructive points?
1
I definitely agree that more covert means -- such as the use of professional assassins -- would have been preferable to outright warfare. In fact, I rather like Thomas More's strategy as outlined in *Utopia* -- just put up "Wanted" posters in the country which harbors the offending ruler, offering a hefty monetary prize to whichever one of his disaffected subjects bumps him off. Hey, the fundamentalist Islamic world has been putting a price on people's heads in the Western world for years now. I see no reason why we shouldn't do the same, in return.
As for how the Democrats are reacting to all this... Well, one must remember that they are, first and foremost, politicians. Which means that their modus operandi is to get as many people as possible to LIKE them so that they'll get elected or re-elected. (Which shows what a freakin' incompetent Bush is as a politician, because so many people hate him, despite the fact that he keeps trying to convince the nation that god loves him and what he's doing.)
While I'm more likely to support a Democratic candidate than I am a Republican candidate, I hardly hold a high opinion of any of them.
-- Nanaea
As for how the Democrats are reacting to all this... Well, one must remember that they are, first and foremost, politicians. Which means that their modus operandi is to get as many people as possible to LIKE them so that they'll get elected or re-elected. (Which shows what a freakin' incompetent Bush is as a politician, because so many people hate him, despite the fact that he keeps trying to convince the nation that god loves him and what he's doing.)
While I'm more likely to support a Democratic candidate than I am a Republican candidate, I hardly hold a high opinion of any of them.
-- Nanaea
1
During the past US elections I held positive (yet lukewarm) feelings in favour of Bush, mainly because of what the self-righteous Clinton had done in my back yard ; i.e. he nuked the bejesus out of Yugoslavia, a democratic country with an elected president. Milocevic was no angel, mind you, but he was lawfully elected. I had welcomed Bush's announcements of withdrawing troops for abroad, and concentrating on domestic US issues. Little did I know!
1