REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

American Hiroshima: yes to if, no to when

POSTED BY: HKCAVALIER
UPDATED: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 07:06
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 7125
PAGE 2 of 2

Friday, July 22, 2005 9:58 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
Ah, the 'its all our fault' line of thought. I say there's too much understanding from the Democrats and not enough ass kicking.


Where's the value in characterizing the problem in all or nothing terms? By writing off attempts to understand the underlying cause of terrorism as 'blame America first' thinking, you're neglecting an important, possibly the most important, ingredient to protecting ourselves from terrorism.
Quote:

You want us to step back and solve the underlying problems. Problems that are the legacy of cold war, colonialism, corruption of international institutions and thousands of years of religeous conflict. And while your studying that, they are murdering innocent men, women, and children on the streets of our friends, allies, and brothers in arms and dreaming of the day they can do the same thing on every streetcorner in every town of our own country.

Which is exactly why we need to quit wasting lives and money on a failed strategy and get to down to what's really going on. The reason Islamic terrorism started in the first place was our unwelcome military presence in the region. Increasing that military presence is precisely the way to deepen the motivation for terrorists.
Quote:

The only underlying issue now that needs solved is this: we are at war. War means fighting. Fighting means killing. And victory means killing them until they are all dead or they give up.

Can you honestly say this will ever happen?

As long as they believe that we intend to occupy their land indefinitely, I don't see them giving up. We need to make our intentions perfectly clear before we can expect the terrorists, or more importantly the general Muslim population, to cooperate.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 22, 2005 10:16 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:

So, do you not agree that preventing a nuclear attack on US soil is worth diplomatic effort?



Only if it works. If not then its really just a bunch of talk.

We had lots of diplomacy going right right up to the attack on Pearl Harbor. Lots of diplomacy keeping Hitler out of Poland. Didn't work out so well.

But diplomacy also kept the peace with the Soviets. Diplomacy and the absolute faith our enemies had in our ability to end their collective existence.

Diplomacy works best in the presense of armed force and steely resolve. Thats why Reagan, not Carter or Teddy Kennedy, won the cold war. Thats why Bush, not Kerry or anyone named Clinton, will win this one.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 22, 2005 10:29 AM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
we could focus solving the problems in the first place that might lead to a situation where people would end up wanting to kick *ss.



Ah, the 'its all our fault' line of thought. I say there's too much understanding from the Democrats and not enough ass kicking. Thats why they keep getting their collective asses kicked in national elections.

They've lost nearly every race since 1994, including control of the House, Senate, Presidency, the majority of State legislatures and Governorships.

One good example is Howard Dean who urges us not to condem Osama Bin Laddin without a trial but demands we jail Karl Rove without one.

You want us to step back and solve the underlying problems. Problems that are the legacy of cold war, colonialism, corruption of international institutions and thousands of years of religeous conflict. And while your studying that, they are murdering innocent men, women, and children on the streets of our friends, allies, and brothers in arms and dreaming of the day they can do the same thing on every streetcorner in every town of our own country.

The only underlying issue now that needs solved is this: we are at war. War means fighting. Fighting means killing. And victory means killing them until they are all dead or they give up. We can address their other concerns at the peace table and in the history books when its over, but we should be dictating the terms: liberty, democracy, opportunity to our former enemies (just like we did for Germany and Japan). Because their terms: fear, death, intollerance, dispair; wont don't seem as desirable.

H



Eloquent summation speech, councilor. Emotional appeal, logical fallacy, bandwagoning, slander (I'm sure I've missed a couple) all delivered with that patented John Wayne gravitas of yours. "War means fighting. Fighting means killing. And victory means killing them until they are all dead or they give up." Unfortunately, it shows little if any sensitivity to the reality before us. I'm afraid that with you, the mythic pageantry may run too deep.

If you had read the thread and sought to join the discussion instead of lobbing in your elegant accumulato, you'd have noticed that the victory of which you speak has been thoroughly debated and acknowledged as a fantasy that simply does not fit the actual situation. Terrorism is not an army you can defeat in battle. "Giving up" requires an intact survival instinct--you know, having something to lose. The spurious "them" to whom you refer now apparently includes British citizens. The world is growing too small for this childish "us and them" dualism to continue.

Rue's remarks speak to me not of "it's all our fault," but of our responsibility as citizens of the world. Unlike the terrorists, we can do something other than kill. We need not polarize the entire Islamic world against us.

Quote:

"And while your studying that, they are murdering innocent men, women, and children on the streets of our friends, allies, and brothers in arms and dreaming of the day they can do the same thing on every streetcorner in every town of our own country."


Yes, Hero, they dream. How do you kill a dream? From where I sit, your facile, cowboys-and-indians, old-school jingoism can only fuel and sustain that dream.


HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 22, 2005 10:40 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
By writing off attempts to understand the underlying cause of terrorism as 'blame America first' thinking, you're neglecting an important, possibly the most important, ingredient to protecting ourselves from terrorism.


There is historical precedent for my perspective. Not a lot of Indian (American) attacks these days. Was it because we understood them and addressed their concerns? No. Its because we defeated them and removed their ability and will to engage in armed conflict.

Not saying what we did was right or wrong. But it was damned effective.

Terrorists are engaged in a military conflict with the United States and its allies. The most imortant ingediant in protecting ourselves from them is to kill them or destroy their will. We can discuss right and wrong later, when the threat is eliminated and we can engage in the cool reflection of enlightened history.

Quote:


Which is exactly why we need to quit wasting lives and money on a failed strategy and get to down to what's really going on. The reason Islamic terrorism started in the first place was our unwelcome military presence in the region. Increasing that military presence is precisely the way to deepen the motivation for terrorists.


Thats crap, er...I mean I respectfully disagree. Our war strategy has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of terrorists and their allies, its spread liberty and justice to two nations, one a terrorist stronghold, the other a brutal dictatorship and the ripples have swept nations like Lebanon, Eqypt, Saudi Arabia, Libya, and so on further down the path towards reform, not to mention other countries like the Ukraine who follow the example of brave Iraqis, Afganis, and Lebanese who brave terror and tragedy to stand for freedom and democracy.

And the Islamafascist's issue is not the intrusion of our military in their region, but rather the intrusion of our culture on their power. That and a fundamental disagreement with our belief that Jews have a right to live. Those are the real issues in this war.

Quote:


Can you honestly say this will ever happen?


Its happened before. History is a fine teacher about whats possible given the will and circumstance to make it happen.

Quote:


As long as they believe that we intend to occupy their land indefinitely, I don't see them giving up. We need to make our intentions perfectly clear before we can expect the terrorists, or more importantly the general Muslim population, to cooperate.



Well there is your mistake. Cooperation with the terrorists. Sad really. You were doing quite well.

Cooperation. Thats like everybody getting together to raise a barn. When you include a terrorist, your just asking for your barn to be blown up. Best to not invite them and if you see them hangin round, show them the cooperative end of a shotgun.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 22, 2005 11:19 AM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
There is historical precedent for my perspective. Not a lot of Indian (American) attacks these days. Was it because we understood them and addressed their concerns? No. Its because we defeated them and removed their ability and will to engage in armed conflict.

Not saying what we did was right or wrong. But it was damned effective.



Sweet Jesus, Hero! Sometimes I think there must be some snarky undergraduate wag laughing up his sleave at how serious we all take his little exercise in devil's advocacy named Hero.

But you're serious. "Not saying what we did was right or wrong." There's moral courage for ya! Yeah, and the German government believed there was a Jewish conspiracy to control the banks of Europe and now there aren't any Jews in Europe. Not saying what they did was right or wrong. But the final solution was damned effective.

Yes, Hero. Genocide is effective. History proves it.

Chrisisall, please say something funny.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 22, 2005 11:45 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Hero- are you advocating the murder of thousands, if not millions, of innocent people? A YES or NO will do.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 22, 2005 12:13 PM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Hero- are you advocating the murder of thousands, if not millions, of innocent people? A YES or NO will do.



No. I'm advocating the catching, killing, incarcerating or otherwise neutralizing thousands of people. The ones I want are not innocent.

Thats the the biggest disagreement we seem to have. You seem to think these people are innocent. They are terrorists and their victims are not just the dead and injured innocents in London, New York, Bagdad, and Isreal, its their own people who.

It is you who are seeking to seek an accomidation with those who murder innocents. And this dialogue of right and wrong has no place until the war is won.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 22, 2005 12:50 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


So, to clarify- the ones you want are guilty of.... ? Committing terrorist acts? Knowingly supporting or harboring terrorists? Where do you draw the line between innocent a guilty? Also- how much "collateral damage" are you willing to accept?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 22, 2005 12:55 PM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
...And this dialogue of right and wrong has no place until the war is won.




If we lose the will to engage in moral conduct as a nation, I don't give a damn whether we win or not.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 22, 2005 5:49 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"Hero"
Quote:

Our war strategy has ... spread liberty and justice to two nations, one a terrorist stronghold, the other a brutal dictatorship and the ripples have swept nations like Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Libya, and so on further down the path towards reform, not to mention other countries like the Ukraine who follow the example of brave Iraqis, Afghanis, and Lebanese who brave terror and tragedy to stand for freedom and democracy.
Somehow by reading this I suspect you want so much more than to go after terrorists (all guilty on your say-so of course) and leave the innocents, their cultures, governments and land alone.



Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 23, 2005 10:08 AM

HKCAVALIER


I find the current state of discourse in this country so toxic, it impedes simple logical thought. For instance, it occures to me that there are plenty of countries that are more culturally liberal than our own. Why don't the Islamic fundies go after Holland if cultural decadence and "freedom" are their beef? Why don't the terrorists hate their freedom too?

'Cause Holland ain't pointing a gun at anyone.

With our military superiority, we effectively hold the entire world hostage to our good will. Is that too difficult to understand? It's like the old good cop/bad cop ploy. The bare fact of our military power which we have demonstrated regularly around the world since Hiroshima, is the "bad cop" that stands in the back of the room at the ready, observing while we "spread liberty and justice."

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 23, 2005 11:22 AM

HARDWARE


Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
I find the current state of discourse in this country so toxic, it impedes simple logical thought. For instance, it occures to me that there are plenty of countries that are more culturally liberal than our own. Why don't the Islamic fundies go after Holland if cultural decadence and "freedom" are their beef? Why don't the terrorists hate their freedom too?

'Cause Holland ain't pointing a gun at anyone.

With our military superiority, we effectively hold the entire world hostage to our good will. Is that too difficult to understand? It's like the old good cop/bad cop ploy. The bare fact of our military power which we have demonstrated regularly around the world since Hiroshima, is the "bad cop" that stands in the back of the room at the ready, observing while we "spread liberty and justice."

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.



I think you are mistaken HKCavalier.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6872461

A dutch filmmaker was slain because he filmed a documentary that was critical of Islamic culture. The terrorists (I'd like to use a different word since "terrorist" is become dissolute from overuse, but it really is the best word here.) threatened Jihad against politicians and civillians.

You see it is a war of ideas and the Islamic militants are inflexible in their beliefs, just like the Nazis and their Axis alliance during World War 2. We dropped many bombs on Germany, Italy and Japan during WW2. If we could have invented a bomb that would only kill Nazis, or Islamic militants that would have been or would be great, but citizens must suffer because they don't stop these madmen. The critical difference is that now the war is being brought home by people rather than sovereign governments. Should the nations allowing their citizens to wage war be held accountable for the actions of a few people?

There is another problem, resources. The region generating this problem, fundamental terrorism, also generates a lot of oil. Our economy runs on oil. Doing anything that may cut off the flow of oil makes politicians nervous. Let the economy hit a brick wall, such as it would if the oil were shut off, and those politicians won't get voted back into office.

Don't think for an instant I would hesitate to use the most awesome weapon in our arsenal if it would resolve the problem. If it took the streets of Mecca and Medina running red with the blood of innocent civillians I would do it and sleep soundly that night having done it. Don't think I wouldn't license the immediate destruction of every man, woman and child in these terrorist's families if it would stop the violence and bloodshed, but it won't.

This is a war of ideas. Islamic fundamentalists have a mad on because their culture doesn't have as much to offer young people. Western culture has flashy advertisments, enticements of sex, liberation, freedom to pursue your own way of life. Their culture has none of that. The American idea that anyone can rise to highest levels of power is an incredible lure. Their culture promises hard work and exclusion unless you are born to the right family. The Islamic region was far in advance of the west for hundreds of years. Post Crusade they fell far, far behind and never caught up. What happened? The rise of fundamentalism. The cause? The crusades.

So you can see how deeply set the roots of the problem are.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 23, 2005 11:53 AM

HKCAVALIER


Ach, the whole Van Gogh thing. I forgot about that for the moment, but it wasn't exactly a murder in the name of the culture war, now was it? It was to silence a journalist who'd made an incriminating documentary. Not the same thing at all. We must be able to make the simplest distinctions, Hardware.

Quote:

Originally posted by Hardware:
Don't think for an instant I would hesitate to use the most awesome weapon in our arsenal if it would resolve the problem. If it took the streets of Mecca and Medina running red with the blood of innocent civillians I would do it and sleep soundly that night having done it. Don't think I wouldn't license the immediate destruction of every man, woman and child in these terrorist's families if it would stop the violence and bloodshed, but it won't.



Good God. Where in God's name does this disgusting rhetoric come from? What are you trying to prove, talking like this? That you're "tough?" I thought I'd heard the first and last of this genocidal posturing from Hero, but now you join in the chorus? What is your problem?

You don't perceive that your bloodthirsty ravings are a total non sequitur? It's like saying, "And I'd strangle you in your sleep if I thought it would cure cancer, but it won't." It only exposes your mental preoccupations without addressing the real futility of violence in this case.

Chrisisall, I'm still waiting on the funny.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 23, 2005 12:29 PM

HARDWARE


I believe you misunderstand me. I was trying to underline the futility of violence. Both sides have proven they are capable of whatever level of violent escalation the other side climbs to. As things are now this is a never ending circle of violence. It will take something bigger than either side to break the circle.

But I believe you are wrong about the Van Gogh thing. They specifically targetted him for his documentary, but they promised Jihad against politicians and anyone who stands in their way. As you pointed out Holland isn't pointing a gun at anybody. They sought him out merely because he had a different viewpoint than they did. Sort of takes away the rational argument that terrorism happens because the terrorists are downtrodden and fearful of the military of the targetted countries, doesn't it?

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 23, 2005 3:09 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

No. I'm advocating the catching, killing, incarcerating or otherwise neutralizing thousands of people. The ones I want are not innocent.

Thats the the biggest disagreement we seem to have. You seem to think these people are innocent. They are terrorists and their victims are not just the dead and injured innocents in London, New York, Bagdad, and Isreal, its their own people who.

I'm waiting for Hero to say, in his own words, who the "guilty" are and the collateral damage he's willing to accept.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 24, 2005 8:46 AM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:

Originally posted by Hardware:
I believe you misunderstand me. I was trying to underline the futility of violence. Both sides have proven they are capable of whatever level of violent escalation the other side climbs to. As things are now this is a never ending circle of violence. It will take something bigger than either side to break the circle.



Okay then, Hardware. Knowing your sensible contributions to this board in the past, I was very surprised by what I was reading from you yesterday. I still think that was a pretty grizzly strawman you built for your argument, but I'm glad to hear I misunderstood you. I'm glad to hear you weren't seriously contemplating genocide.

Quote:

But I believe you are wrong about the Van Gogh thing. They specifically targetted him for his documentary, but they promised Jihad against politicians and anyone who stands in their way. As you pointed out Holland isn't pointing a gun at anybody. They sought him out merely because he had a different viewpoint than they did. Sort of takes away the rational argument that terrorism happens because the terrorists are downtrodden and fearful of the military of the targetted countries, doesn't it?


Not really, and I hope you don't think I'm splitting hairs or making a nice distinction, but violence alway proceeds from distortion and false logic. If your main goal is to hurt someone and make them afraid of you, you'll say and do any damn thing that gets the job done. And Hardware, this they you refer to again and again--you have no idea who they are. Not really. Or how many they are, or if they have any connection beyond their rhetoric with any of the other "they's" who commit terrorism.

If we leap from assumption to assumption in a paranoid trance of vengence we will never end terrorism until it ends us.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 24, 2005 9:09 AM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:

Originally posted by InevitableBetrayal:
See, here's where I make what I hope will be my final point of the evening (since I have class in 45 minutes): deep down, I'm afraid that nothing will work. Deep down I really feel that diplomacy will merely embolden terrorists and military action enrage them. The only path I see is to do everything they want and then seal the borders and cut off all contact with the world (which would tickle them pink, no doubt). Seriously, we're up against an enemy that's more committed winning than we are. Yikes.



InevitableB, I hope you're still reading the thread, because I thought we had a pretty worthwhile discussion going until Mr. Tar Baby came and hijacked it (Signy, I hope you won't be too disappointed if he doesn't answer your question--I know I won't).

IB, I really appreciate your candor with this last post. I think it's of the utmost importance that we be able to talk about our hopelessness these days, because there is an awful lot of it out there. It's why I started this thread in the first place.

I think a lot of people making policy today share your hopelessness and that's why they're making such horrible decissions. If nothing we do can change the situation for the better, then all that's left to us is to strike an heroic pose on deck as the ship sinks (and the Bush administration is very, very good at posing heroically while everything falls down about their ears).

We could hear that hopelessness throughout the last election, every time John Kerry opened his mouth. He had no plan to "win the peace" 'cause he didn't believe it was possible. Bush certainly doesn't believe it's possible. What are we gonna do, if our leaders have no workable realistic vision for the future?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 24, 2005 9:44 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Hardware:
Don't think for an instant I would hesitate to use the most awesome weapon in our arsenal if it would resolve the problem.


Glory be to the Bomb and to the Holy fallout, which made Heaven out of Earth.

I reveal my inmost self Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 24, 2005 10:12 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
this dialogue of right and wrong has no place until the war is won.


I.e., it has no place.

Hero, I find you guilty of using your impressive intelect to subvert your humanity. Your lack of humility astounds this court. Your inability to empathize with your fellow man not endowed by their creator with your geographical location on this world seems to know no limits.

Your conscience is hereby ordered to gnaw away at your psychological superiority defence and it's ancillary fear-reaction subroutines until you retreat from the dark side, or go mad, whichever comes first.

This court is adjourned.



The honourable Judge Topher Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 24, 2005 10:31 AM

INEVITABLEBETRAYAL


Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Quote:

Originally posted by InevitableBetrayal:
See, here's where I make what I hope will be my final point of the evening (since I have class in 45 minutes): deep down, I'm afraid that nothing will work. Deep down I really feel that diplomacy will merely embolden terrorists and military action enrage them. The only path I see is to do everything they want and then seal the borders and cut off all contact with the world (which would tickle them pink, no doubt). Seriously, we're up against an enemy that's more committed winning than we are. Yikes.



InevitableB, I hope you're still reading the hread, because I thought we had a pretty worthwhile discussion going until Mr. Tar Baby came and hijacked it (Signy, I hope you won't be too disappointed if he doesn't answer your question--I know I won't).

IB, I really appreciate your candor with this last post. I think it's of the utmost importance that we be able to talk about our hopelessness these days, because there is an awful lot of it out there. It's why I started this thread in the first place.

I think a lot of people making policy today share your hopelessness and that's why they're making such horrible decissions. If nothing we do can change the situation for the better, then all that's left to us is to strike an heroic pose on deck as the ship sinks (and the Bush administration is very, very good at posing heroically while everything falls down about their ears).

We could hear that hopelessness throughout the last election, every time John Kerry opened his mouth. He had no plan to "win the peace" 'cause he didn't believe it was possible. Bush certainly doesn't believe it's possible. What are we gonna do, if our leaders have no workable realistic vision for the future?



Yeah, that was not the world's easiest post. Used to be hard-core conservative, pro-Bush, pro-military-intervention, etc. But instead of just flopping to the other side, I seem to have lost all hope in the entire process. Democrats: overly simplistic worldview. Republicans: same deal. Republicans: foreign policy based on said worldview + political considerations. Dems: same deal. I don't even have hope that there is such a thing as "moderate" position. Interesting thing about people: we think in valorize binary pairs (e.g. good/bad, up/down, right/wrong), so I don't even see a way clear to the "middle ground". I'm just becoming increasingly frustrated by the screeching of the politicians and mooing of the masses. I spent months and months in combat over there, and I can't even bring myself to talk to people about because they've already got their minds made up. If the situation is cracked, what's to be done? If nothing we do will work, what do we do?

_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 24, 2005 10:33 AM

INEVITABLEBETRAYAL


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
this dialogue of right and wrong has no place until the war is won.


I.e., it has no place.

Hero, I find you guilty of using your impressive intelect to subvert your humanity. Your lack of humility astounds this court. Your inability to empathize with your fellow man not endowed by their creator with your geographical location on this world seems to know no limits.

Your conscience is hereby ordered to gnaw away at your psychological superiority defence and it's ancillary fear-reaction subroutines until you retreat from the dark side, or go mad, whichever comes first.

This court is adjourned.



The honourable Judge Topher Chrisisall



Funny, but in a to-keep-from-crying sort of a way.

_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 24, 2005 10:39 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


HAHAHA!!! I'd like Hero to be either redeemed by his words, or convicted by his silence by next Friday. Hero- Are you willing to let this stand?

The point about "winning the peace" seeming hopeless is important. We can point to what WON'T work (MAD) but we don't seem to have an equally muscular alternate. And when things look dire we want a vigorous reponse.

I think we would need to do something really dramatic and follow it up by a consistent pressure in one direction. What really dramatic action could we take that would give everyone hope that we can "win the war on terror"?

(I say that with tongue in cheek, knowing that our actions themselves constitute a form of terror.)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 24, 2005 10:47 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
I'm waiting for Hero to say, in his own words, who the "guilty" are and the collateral damage he's willing to accept.



Just like any other war. The guilty are those who give the orders, in this case, the mullahs, islamifascists, and money men who command our enemies. I'm sure you'll lump Bush in that catagory, but he never bombed a single Arab country till after Sept 11th (although to be accurate he may have dropped a bomb or two on Iraq, it was happening whenever Iraq took too many potshots at American and British planes in the old no-fly zones). Ultimately guilt or innocense is determined by history and history is written (in America) or dictated (in fascist regimes) by the winners.

Our enemies are those who take the field in armed conflict against us and those who support them either directly or indirectly.

In WW2 we killed soldiers on the battlefield, workers in factories, but only enemy leaders were later tried and executed. War brought death to our enemies and peace brought justice to the guilty. Its a novel 20th Century concept, like a kind of social new technology to go with the smart bomb, instant coffee, and Hershey Bars that don't melt in the desert.

As for "collateral damage", its dictated by two things. First is our technology, which is used to limit such damage. The other thing is the action of our enemies, which tends to increase such damage. I would be perfectly happy to designate a small section of otherwise useless land, far from innocent people or extranious structures, upon which our enemies can gather for orderly neutralization. If they cooperated they might even survive the experiance since we could subistute big nets for 500lb bombs. That they choose not too, opting instead to occupy Holy sites, schools, or homes, and surround themselves with human shields, is hardly the fault of the American military.

We do our best and pay really big bucks to limit damage as much as possible. It'd be equally effective and far more efficient to pay a little less and destroy a little more. Right now we destroy buildings instead of cities. I'd say that's pretty good.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 24, 2005 10:51 AM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
this dialogue of right and wrong has no place until the war is won.


I.e., it has no place.

Hero, I find you guilty of using your impressive intelect to subvert your humanity. Your lack of humility astounds this court. Your inability to empathize with your fellow man not endowed by their creator with your geographical location on this world seems to know no limits.

Your conscience is hereby ordered to gnaw away at your psychological superiority defence and it's ancillary fear-reaction subroutines until you retreat from the dark side, or go mad, whichever comes first.

This court is adjourned.



The honourable Judge Topher Chrisisall



Ah! Well worth the wait, Chrisisall! O'course, the first Americans were endowed by their creator with the same geographical location and it didn't help.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 24, 2005 10:52 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by InevitableBetrayal:
But instead of just flopping to the other side, I seem to have lost all hope in the entire process.


NO! Do NOT go to the other side, it's not an ideal location, either.
We have to believe that the process works on SOME level, there are more alive than dying, more fed than starving...it's not ALL bad!
Maybe it ALL needs to be scrutinized, but this world could be a WHOLE lot worse.

Pep talkin' Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 24, 2005 10:58 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Just like any other war. The guilty are those who give the orders, in this case, the mullahs, islamifascists, and money men who command our enemies.... Our enemies are those who take the field in armed conflict against us and those who support them either directly or indirectly.
Does this mean take the field in armed conflict in Iraq... or anywhere? So basically you think we should be able to invade any nation on any pretext and everyone should just lay down their arms and accept our military occupation or be declared an enemy?

EDITED TO ADD: Let me rephrase and narrow that question. If our enemies are those who take the field in armed conflict, how did that make Saddam our enemy? As I recall, he didn't attack us or any of our interests in the Mideast or even any of his neighbors. But if you insist that Saddam was an enemy, then your criteria has nothing to do with armed conflict and you need to clarify what makes someone an enemy.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 24, 2005 11:43 AM

INEVITABLEBETRAYAL


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:

NO! Do NOT go to the other side, it's not an ideal location, either.
We have to believe that the process works on SOME level, there are more alive than dying, more fed than starving...it's not ALL bad!
Maybe it ALL needs to be scrutinized, but this world could be a WHOLE lot worse.

Pep talkin' Chrisisall



Yeah...the thing is, though, I can't see how going dem or GOP is going to solve anything. It feels like half the problem is the whole two-party system. We all take sides on issues and holler 'til our vocal chords bleed, meanwhile bombs are exploding in London. obviously something is wrong if they're bombing us, but golly--even "what's wrong" is a politicized issue on which we must take sides. So what's left to do?

_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 24, 2005 12:50 PM

CHRISISALL


Vote for the guy who shares your view of the problem no matter what 'side' he's on.
Hope public opinion forces whoever's in power to do the right thing.
See Serenity as many times as you need to to make you feel better.

That's what I'm doin' Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 24, 2005 8:08 PM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by InevitableBetrayal:
Yeah...the thing is, though, I can't see how going dem or GOP is going to solve anything. It feels like half the problem is the whole two-party system. We all take sides on issues and holler 'til our vocal chords bleed, meanwhile bombs are exploding in London. obviously something is wrong if they're bombing us, but golly--even "what's wrong" is a politicized issue on which we must take sides. So what's left to do?



Now you're singing my song. This is the thinking that's brought me down to the nitty-gritty of changing our voting system. It really does favor a polarized electorate and diminishes incentives for sane consensus building, not to mention pretty thoroughly shuts out parties willing to look beyond the same-old same-old.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 24, 2005 9:35 PM

PERFESSERGEE


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:

And this dialogue of right and wrong has no place until the war is won.




This is a late response, but I just caught up on this thread, and a fair bit of what I've seen tonight has appalled me, especially the quote above. And I have to say:

WHAT??????

In what 'verse do you reside where decent people who believe in democracy would ever suspend a discussion of what is right and what is wrong, no matter what their objectives? And I'm not talking about when someone is dodging bullets - that's an obvious case of imminent emergency where nobody is discussing anything. I'm talking about a society's (hopefully rational) deliberation about what matters and what is ethical. The "war on terror" is not an imminent emergency for our society at large, at least not most of the time, and if we fail to debate what is right and what is wrong in its conduct, then we give up any claim to belief in the importance of democracy or ethics or morality. In my 'verse, we think those three little concepts are pretty important.

perfessergee

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 25, 2005 5:45 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


To be fair, it's not as if both "sides" are equally to blame. Although most Dems wilted before the Bush juggernaut, it wasn't the Dems who phonied up a pretext and attacked Iraq. I know I've brought this up b4 (D*mn it's depressing being right all the time when you expect the worst from your government and you get it) but according to that far far winger magazine, the one full of liberals baying at the moon and exchanging conspiracy theories... the American Conservative ...
Quote:


The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. ...As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing--that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack--but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.



The Amercian Conservative requires a paid subscription. Thanks to the DailyKos for bringing that article to our attention. www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/22/164841/163

So...
Cheney is one half of Bush's brain (check mark)
9-11 was a pretext for invading Iraq (check mark)
They are planning to bomb Iraq no matter what (check mark)
Nuclear weapons will be used (check mark)


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 25, 2005 6:02 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States.



Thats what they are supprosed to do. Plan contigencies. So that when the President says, "I want options." They can say, "here's one to blow up an aspirin factory in Sudan and here's one for the invasion and conquest of Iran oh and here's one for taking out Paris and blaming Disney..." and so on. Then the President can have them all mounted on a board and can toss darts (which is how Clinton decided to bomb Sudan a few years back, Bush is better at darts, so he nailed the bullseye labled Saddam).

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 25, 2005 6:11 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


How is it that attacking Iran is a logical contingency to a terrorist attack for which Iran bears no responsibilty? The same way that Saddam became our enemy even though he hadn't "taken the field in armed conflict" against us (or anyone)? Please explain.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 25, 2005 6:37 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
How is it that attacking Iran is a logical contingency to a terrorist attack for which Iran bears no responsibilty? The same way that Saddam became our enemy even though he hadn't "taken the field in armed conflict" against us (or anyone)? Please explain.



I'm sure that comprehenive war plans against (or inside of)Iran have existed fo decades. They probably range from small scale special ops missions, limited airstrikes, to larger mission such as seizing oilfields or the outright liberation of the entire nation. They are likely reviewed and updated periodically.

Such plans would exist without the need for any pretext. Therefore there is no "plan to invade Iran if there is a terrorist attack, even if Iran is not involved". There are merely plans. And if something happens, like a terrorist attack, then the plans are available and the political context can then be added.

So what your seeing is really something that always is going on, planning, nothing more. The rest, adding the political dynamic, is likely an unsourced addition to spice up a routine activity.

Or it could be a calculated leak meant to send a message to Iran. Maybe you'd prefer we be less subtle. Perhaps Bush on TV saying, "It shall be the policy of this Nation to regard any nuclear, chemical, or biological attack launched by terrorists against any nation as an attack by the Islamic Republic of Iran on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the Iranian nation."

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 25, 2005 6:43 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


The article is clearly not talking about comprehensive or generic plans. But perhaps you missed the part "...drawing up a contingency plan in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States.... [which] includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons... As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. " Hero, you're not worth the time discussing this with. You havent' answered either question:

(1) How is atacking Iran a logical RESPONSE to 9-11 type act or terror?
(2) How did Saddam become an enemy when (by your defintion) he did not "take the field in armed combat" against us- or anyone in fact? Oh, and BTW
(3) WTF is the Islamic Republic? Is that your NEW enemy?

When you've answered my questions, I will continue this debate with you. Until then...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 25, 2005 7:20 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
The article is clearly not talking about comprehensive or generic plans.



Like I said. The article was unsourced. But since such planning is always going on the politcal context was added to an existing Pentagon function. I suggested two possible reasons. One was to spice up a story on a routine Pentagon function, the other is to backchannel a warning to Iran. Since Iraq made our policies clear with regards to terrorist supporting states, like Iran, I think this is more likely the former, a story about a routine function spiced up to make it a better read.

A war with Iran likely would not use nuclear weapons unless Iran used WMD's first (and if they did, we'd probably need a plan, so this is good). It would be far more effective to join in coalition with Iranian factions such as Iranian Kurds, moderates in the army, and pro-demorcratic students to engender an approach similar to Afganistan.

Having gamed out war in Iran (thanks to GDW's Third World War series), I can tell you, its no picnic, even without the Soviet intervention.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 25, 2005 7:48 AM

JOSSISAGOD


As a very wise senator once said, ok senator Amidala from Ep. 2, if you offer the terrorists violence, they can only show violence in return. paraphrased from a deleted scene. As for an "American Hiroshima", it is possible that it may happen. it's unlikely terrorist cells have the technology to follow it through yet, and I sure hope it never happens. Also, I hope that none of terrorist cells have knowledge of this site.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 25, 2005 7:53 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I was curious how broading-ranging the reference to Islamic Republic is. It includes Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Muaritania, and the Comoros, and I'm not sure if that's the end of the list. I think we should have a contingency plan for invading the IR of Mauritania.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 25, 2005 8:00 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
I was curious how broading-ranging the reference to Islamic Republic is. It includes Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Muaritania, and the Comoros, and I'm not sure if that's the end of the list. I think we should have a contingency plan for invading the IR of Mauritania.



In case you've never noticed, Iran is the short form. The formal name is the Islamic Republic of Iran. And your right, there are a lot of Islamic Republics. There are also People's Reublics, Federal Republics, Democratic Republics, United States, but not so many Grand Duchies.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 25, 2005 7:30 PM

PIRATEJENNY


Quote:

Mr. Speaker, more than half of the American people now believe that the Iraqi war has made the U.S. less safe. This is a dramatic shift in sentiment from 2 years ago. Early support for the war reflected a hope for a safer America, and it was thought to be an appropriate response to the 9/11 attacks. The argument was that the enemy attacked us because of our freedom, our prosperity, and our way of life. It was further argued that it was important to engage the potential terrorists over there rather than here. Many bought this argument and supported the war. That is now changing.



I know no one probably wants to hear this, but this statement above is why we need to all of us espeically everyone who supported the war in Iraq need to take responssiblity for whats happening there. what they supported and own up to the mistake.

attacking Iraq was not the appropriate resonse for what happen on 9/11... Iraq didnot have anything to do with 9/11 and attacking a courtry that wasn't even respossible for the terrorist attack was not only wrong but tragic, that means every individual every American citizen should take responssiblity for what our government did... for what WE LET THEM DO!! AND FOR WHAT HALF THE PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY DOWNRIGHT SUPPORTED!!! you can say you were hoodwinked, that you were an innocent victum of dishonesty, or that you were mad..whatever you want to claim ..but take resonssiblity..because what happened in Iraq in now all of our responssiblity wether we supported the actions or not. and we are all going to have to live with the consequences of Iraq.

Everyone should take heed of Congressman Ron Paul's words.... I don't think its currently to late for us to change whats happening..but if we as the people as representatives of our country don't take responssiblity and make our government who is unwilling to take responssiblity then yeah we are pretty much doomed, these people have a will a determination and a desire that we lack and they will succeed so its in our own best intrest to make it happen.

Its really sad, as I was saying in another thread, we can't even seem to come together, and make our own government take responssiblity for the crimnal acts they are committing right here in the good ole U.S.A...(Karl Rove treason) how in the hell are we going to solve our problems aboard


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 25, 2005 7:40 PM

PIRATEJENNY



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 25, 2005 7:40 PM

PIRATEJENNY


orginally posted by signym
Quote:

However, I also think it's realistic- even preferable- to talk about what we should do IF it should happen, even if that involves doing NOTHING except act in response mode (medical treatment, decontamination etc.) It's like any emergency -


actually I think this is a good idea, its too bad our government thinks the American people are to stupid to to discuss this issue in a rational matter.

It would be nice to talk realistically about what we should do in an emergency when a bomb is dropped on us. I'm sure the reality of the matter is that most people in the areas directly hit, there is probably not much help for them put for people in the our laying areas are probably not a lost cause, we should know how this is going to effect us

so do you have any ideas!!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 25, 2005 7:55 PM

PIRATEJENNY


orginally posted by Finn Mac Cumhal

Quote:

The problem is that Islamic Terrorism, unlike Nazism or Fascism or Japanese Imperialism, is a product of a culture that is unconfined to any region or group of states (even though certain states and regions are obviously more heavily infected with this culture). Most of the terrorist in the London attack were British citizens born in Britain. Nuclear weapons are weapons against states, not cultures, and as such they are very ineffective as an offensive tool in the war on terror. In order to attack Islamic Terrorism, one must attack the culture that breeds it.



but that is what a terrorist is, thats why bombing a country in retaliation to a terrorist act is not only a terrorist act itself but also madness, the reason why such action is ineffective against terrorist, is because the very act of terrorism and violenc only begets and encourages and intensifies more of the same behavior.

attacking the culture isn't the answer, just for the simple fact that anyone can be a terrorist, you could be a terrorist, all you need is a cause an the will to go out and commit a terrorist act, acts of vilolence and forced policy is what is breeding more terrorist, not the culture.

Look at Ireland... look right here in our own yard at the oaklahoma bombings Tim McVie...what culture bred them...Culture is not the problem..!!


Quote:

Now if you really want to strike fear into the heart of Islamic terrorists, then turn Iraq into a liberal democracy. That will do far more damage to Islamic Terrorism then nuking Mecca.


wow this comment is as condesending as ever, I don't say that to be crass, but only to point out that this is the kind of attitude thats hurting us.


Has Iraq ever in its long histroy ever had a liberal democracy, as the founding father of high Civilzation has Iraq ever..
(I'm not even sure at this point if we have a democracy}

do they even want that type of goverment???

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 25, 2005 8:11 PM

PIRATEJENNY


Quote:

In the short-term I'd say no. The US does not have a large enough radical Muslim population to do that internally (though one well-connected radical Islamist could prove me wrong).


so many assume that its going to be middle eastern arabic people that we have to watch out for, but I give the terrorist more credit then that!!...less we forget we live in a country were for the right price their are higher ups that would sell there mom for the right price..

I suspect that the terrorist will probably recruit people of european= Russian an eastern european an probably asian decent to carry out these acts , most middle eastern Islamic people are under alot of scruity, both here an abroad.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 25, 2005 8:21 PM

PIRATEJENNY


Quote:

But on a point of historical correctness, the US military has in the past deliberately targeted non-combatants (Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki). Perhaps not recently, but it is not without precedent. I would hope that we don't follow that precedent.


and that is precisely why its laughable for us to even claim a moral high ground.... Its really time for us to get our heads out of our arses and be honest..we aren't fooling anyone but ourselves!!!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 25, 2005 8:43 PM

PIRATEJENNY


orginally posted by Hero~!!


Quote:

Its not madness, its MAD'ness. Mutual Assured Destruction. Sounds wacky but that little idea kept the peace for what? Over fifty years. That and other ideas thought by liberals to be sure fire recipes for global destruction.

MAD, collective security, engagement, containment, cowboy diplomacy, military buildups...basically anything we tried that worked was opposed at some point by the liberals at some point or another.





Of course Zero!! oops I meant Hero,( excuse the pun I was trying to be funny I'm sure you can appreciate that)... how could I forget, with you it always comes down to the Liberals


Quote:

No. I'm advocating the catching, killing, incarcerating or otherwise neutralizing thousands of people. The ones I want are not innocent.

Thats the the biggest disagreement we seem to have. You seem to think these people are innocent. They are terrorists and their victims are not just the dead and injured innocents in London, New York, Bagdad, and Isreal, its their own people who.



as long as you realize Hero, ... you have to realize that you are not innocent..we are not innocent, you see it as black and white..you see the united States as rightious and yourself as innocent..you aren't we arent...I know this is a very hard concept for you..but why don't you try to see yourself as a human being first...and an American 2nd..

you and I and the rest of us are no more innocent,then the people in Iraq, Iran, or anyother middle eastern country, when we support the terrorist acts of our own government what makes us any diffrent from those people who support the acts of terrorist!!

Quote:

It is you who are seeking to seek an accomidation with those who murder innocents. And this dialogue of right and wrong has no place until the war is won.


won???? what is there to win, when this is a war that can't be won, not witht he way its being fought, remember terrorist acts only brings more terrorist acts!!!




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 7:06 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by piratejenny:
Of course Zero!! oops I meant Hero,( excuse the pun I was trying to be funny I'm sure you can appreciate that)... how could I forget, with you it always comes down to the Liberals


I do appreciate that. But you don't need to go for the cheap name calling bit. Just post your ideas...

As for liberals, its all about history. Liberals were sure Ronald Reagan was going to cause a nuclear war. They were certain that appeasment was the answer to Hitler and the Soviets. They knew with absolute certainty that America was destined to lose the Cold War. They knew that no good could come from money shot into a space program, that cutting taxes would ruin the economy, that stopping the building of power plants and drilling for oil was good for America. The list goes on. And on. And on. Matter of fact, list every major scientifc, economic, political, and social evolution of the last 60 years and you'll find that the liberal leaders, especially in the US Senate and capitals of Europe, stood against them.

Now make no mistake. Liberals have good points. I believe no one defines a problem or issue better then liberals. But they can't solve them. Likewise conservatives have great difficulty conceiving of most problems until they make themselves manifest (like 9/11). But they are the best at solving those problems. Seems to me what we need are both, like conservative democrats from Georgia or maybe compassionate conservatives from Texas.

Quote:



as long as you realize Hero, ... you have to realize that you are not innocent..we are not innocent, you see it as black and white..you see the united States as rightious and yourself as innocent..you aren't we arent...I know this is a very hard concept for you..but why don't you try to see yourself as a human being first...and an American 2nd..



If I'm guilty, what then am I guilty of? I woke up in this land called America in a house built by the sweat of my father and struck out to make my fortune. I worked my way through college and law school and now I'm guilty of some crime.

Meanwhile some Jihadist is out there chopping the heads off my friends and neighbors who so dutifully volunteered to go in my place to fight for liberty and freedom, and he's the one who needs understanding and compromise.

A great man once noted that 'in the beginning all the world was America'. I am an American first, last and always to the day I die or they kill me. Fact is what these Islamafascists are doing would be as wrong in Ohio as it is in Iraq or anywhere else. We have to fight that wrong.

And what was our big crimes? We set foot on their land, invited, to defend them from an aggressive neighbor. Our women are not slaves. We let Jews live. We succeed where others fail. We are in front, the leader of a free world. We choose our own leaders by Democratic process. We suffer the rule of law and strive for justice and equity. We show mercy and restraint to our enemies. We allow internal disagreement. We encourage free expression. We help those in need. We want a better life for our children. We have made our land the envy of the entire world. All races, cultures, creeds, and religons are welcome here. We are proud of the legacy our father's gave us: liberty, prosperity, democracy, and the duty to safeguard it for ourselves, our posterity, and the world.

Guilty as charged.

Quote:


when we support the terrorist acts of our own government what makes us any diffrent from those people who support the acts of terrorist!!


If you are asking that question then no one has killed you for holding a dissenting opinion. I think that is where you should start looking for your answer. No one has killed you for thinking your thoughts and speaking your mind. If someone from the American government does show up and kill you...I'll concede your point.
Quote:


won???? what is there to win, when this is a war that can't be won, not witht he way its being fought, remember terrorist acts only brings more terrorist acts!!!



How would you respond? If someone punched you would you sit there and take it? No, you'd run away or call the police. But what if there was nowhere to run and noone to call? You can take it and watch (if you survive) while they take everything from you, or you can fight back. Americans fight back. Its tradition.

And if you think there is no way to win this war, maybe you just lack imagination. I can think of many ways to win and only one involves the indiscriminate use of nuclear weapons, some are even peaceful, but none are nonviolent and thats because of the nature of the enemy.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Fri, March 29, 2024 02:54 - 3414 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Fri, March 29, 2024 02:49 - 11 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:45 - 56 posts
Elections; 2024
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:33 - 2075 posts
Long List of Celebrities that are Still Here
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:00 - 1 posts
China
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:10 - 447 posts
Biden
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:03 - 853 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:20 - 6155 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL