Posted by Sadie from D007056.N1.Vanderbilt.Edu (188.8.131.52) on Friday, April 11, 2003 at 11:43AM :
In Reply to: clarification, #2 posted by Sadie from D006175.N1.Vanderbilt.Edu (184.108.40.206) on Friday, April 11, 2003 at 10:56AM :
: Yeah, I think you're right about Iraqis wanting Saddam in power. BUT, how many citizens of various nations in this world really admire their local politicians, their nations' leaders? Face it - every government in this world is corrupt - we're ALL under the rule of tyrannts (including & especially us here in the States). Genuinely loving & admiring a tyrannt can be different from settling for a tyrannt. Does this make sense to you?
xxx I haven't settled for Bush, but I'd settle for Saddam over the ex-pats.
: What I was trying to point out was that a fringe religious leader, such as Osama, would *most likely* have more sway over hearts & minds than an ex-politician. Saddam would be more likely to lose his following than Osama. BUT, there are always exceptions to this generalization....
xxx Why do you think Bush keeps mentioning God at every opportunity he can?
xxx On a funny note: my closest girlfriend & I decided the other day what the Old Testament is really about: one man's penis. ONLY he can't call it "a book about my penis" because that makes the book vulgar. So, he calls his penis "God" & there you have it. Why else do they talk about *male* circumcision so much? It has to be about the penis! Penis says this, penis says that.... Penis decrees that woman was created for man, penis degrades the position of woman in society, & penis makes children his enemies & slaves. It's really vulgarity disguised as patriarchal wisdom.
-- signature .
Post a Followup