NO ATTACKS BEFORE 911??!!..........well, that is enough said about your fact finding, and your credibility.Spark wrote:
There was not an attack BEFORE 9/11. Before these p.o.s. 'security measures'. They've done bullshit, apart from allow the government to implement some very dangerous policies.
You are fighting something which cannot be defeated. Officials in the DHS know this. One said
"Terrorism cannot be stopped. It can only be controlled to a high degree". While there's conflict, there's terrorism.
I don't think the soldiers have much of an idea of what they're there for or why they're there. I have sympathy for the soldiers. The Vietnam War (which my parents were DIRECTILY involved) taught me that. It also, though, taught me that the military no longer gives a shit about who they kill.
On American Soil. From non-Americans/America-haters. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
Last edited by Spark (2006-03-10 20:38:10)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Same response...............better do a google search on the happenings of 1993 and 1998 for startersSpark wrote:
On American Soil. From non-Americans/America-haters. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
Last edited by lowing (2006-03-10 20:57:44)
I doubt Marconius is even dumb enough to back ya on this one bub......i dunno maybe he is.........What do ya say Marconius,? You two "THINK TANKS" wanna get together and try and argue the first terrorists attacks on the US was under the Bush administration.....LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!.....Oh please do!!! I never shot fish in a barrel before!! LOL
Last edited by lowing (2006-03-11 07:37:26)
"Terrorism cannot be stopped. It can only be controlled to a high degree". While there's conflict, there's terrorism." <quoted by Spark>
Well if terrorism can not be stopped then the only thing left to do is bow to the terrorist and give in to every demand, since you don't seem to think that blowing up 1 of our cities and killing thousands of American civilians is worth fighting for. Perhaps it is better to live as a puppet then to fight for freedom.
Oh well, so much for the "give me liberty or give me death"crap huh??.............you and Marconius scare the shit outta me with your logic.
Well if terrorism can not be stopped then the only thing left to do is bow to the terrorist and give in to every demand, since you don't seem to think that blowing up 1 of our cities and killing thousands of American civilians is worth fighting for. Perhaps it is better to live as a puppet then to fight for freedom.
Oh well, so much for the "give me liberty or give me death"crap huh??.............you and Marconius scare the shit outta me with your logic.
Last edited by lowing (2006-03-11 08:27:57)
Counter insult or Return a slur and get your post pulled for it by the voice of tolerence and Dissent.lowing wrote:
There were a few reasons why we went to war in IRAQ Marconius,Marconius wrote:
You want to know what I think, lowing? I think you need to open your fucking eyes for once and look at the world around you. I've stated my positions and have written in these forums extensively documenting and backing up my stances.
I know about the PNAC doctrine, which details out the agenda of the Bush administration. Despite it being talked about for several months now, it is JUST now reaching the mainstream media. I know that the 9/11 Commission report was released but heavily edited, and due to the current affairs with the CIA and FBI, I strongly think the censoring had nothing to do with protecting National Security. The credibility of Bush's cabinet has gone into the toilet, and his approval rating has hit lows that no President of the United States has ever hit...even lower than Warren G. Harding.
You seem to not notice the blatant manifest destiny rearing its head again in the form of "liberating Iraq." You are not catching the extreme tides of growing sectarian violence in Iraq due to our own terrorist attack on them. The invasion was brought about by the president twisting the truth to his needs before presenting evidence to Congress, and the current right-wing sentiment was brought by him melding key speech points together to whip everyone up into an anti-Arab frenzy. You don't seem to see how fucking STUPID it is to go to war against a Concept. You are letting race and civil liberty infringements slide just so we can feel "protected."
PROVE that they have been stopping attacks! PROVE that their Homeland Security department is up to snuff. PROVE that my tax dollars are stopping terrorist attacks when they couldn't even respond to the calls for hurricane aid. PROVE to me that this administration is actually causing nothing but good around the world, and that the rest of the world favors what we are doing. I back myself up because that's the very nature of Debate! Don't expect me to lower my stances or think any different if all you can do is spout slanted and uneducated trash at me and expect me to take it at face value with nothing but insults.
And don't pull that "people are dying for your freedom" bullshit with me. Soldiers are dying, but in a country that was not in any way responsible for the hijacking. There was no direct threat to my freedoms until we went over there and kicked up a shitstorm, but the threat doesn't come from "our enemy." It comes from people like you and the current administration who are so cavalier about the destruction of something that's unstoppable, and the loss of our own liberty and country foundations at the expense of doing so.
You, sir, are a failure of the highest degree.
The first is all through the Clinton presidency Iraq had been thumbing its nose at the UN approved resolutions that ended the first gulf war.....you seem to forget that.
Second....Also all through the Clinton Era, America had seen the first WTC attacks, the bombing of several embassies throughout the world and the bombing of 1 of our warships. more terrorist attacks happened during thr Clinton administation than anyone elses......How proud you must feel of him for not doing anything about it. You must be excited to know that Syria had Bin Laden and Clinton didn't want him.....
Now you have a president that has said enough to all of this sucker punching by these terrorist, and he has stepped up to the plate and is fighting back with a spine. Proof?? How much more proof do you want?? There has NOT been another terror attack on US soil since 911.....there is your proof.
Since when is disagreeing with you and telling you why concidered an insult?
You lost me as to how I am a failure to the highest degree.
Ask any of the military personel that are over there or have been over there and they will tell you progress is being made, schools are being built etc.....
OH and then tell them..........lets see what did you say??..oh yes!!....."And don't pull that "people are dying for your freedom" bullshit with me". We will see how that sets with them...
With last comment of yours.....you can call me a failure all you want.......but you are...well........your quote says it all better than I could.
Well I never insulted him, he threw the first "insult" or whatever you want to call it........but if you are going to impose restrictions on words or insults tell it to your boy......not me........every time he is backed into a corner words like "idiot and failure etc.....starts flying lol........i guess to take up the void from the absence of an intelligent response. LOL ............In short if you want to censor me that is fine.........but if you ONLY censor me I will take it as a win since censorship and not words will be the only arguement on this he has left.Horseman 77 wrote:
Counter insult or Return a slur and get your post pulled for it by the voice of tolerence and Dissent.lowing wrote:
There were a few reasons why we went to war in IRAQ Marconius,Marconius wrote:
You want to know what I think, lowing? I think you need to open your fucking eyes for once and look at the world around you. I've stated my positions and have written in these forums extensively documenting and backing up my stances.
I know about the PNAC doctrine, which details out the agenda of the Bush administration. Despite it being talked about for several months now, it is JUST now reaching the mainstream media. I know that the 9/11 Commission report was released but heavily edited, and due to the current affairs with the CIA and FBI, I strongly think the censoring had nothing to do with protecting National Security. The credibility of Bush's cabinet has gone into the toilet, and his approval rating has hit lows that no President of the United States has ever hit...even lower than Warren G. Harding.
You seem to not notice the blatant manifest destiny rearing its head again in the form of "liberating Iraq." You are not catching the extreme tides of growing sectarian violence in Iraq due to our own terrorist attack on them. The invasion was brought about by the president twisting the truth to his needs before presenting evidence to Congress, and the current right-wing sentiment was brought by him melding key speech points together to whip everyone up into an anti-Arab frenzy. You don't seem to see how fucking STUPID it is to go to war against a Concept. You are letting race and civil liberty infringements slide just so we can feel "protected."
PROVE that they have been stopping attacks! PROVE that their Homeland Security department is up to snuff. PROVE that my tax dollars are stopping terrorist attacks when they couldn't even respond to the calls for hurricane aid. PROVE to me that this administration is actually causing nothing but good around the world, and that the rest of the world favors what we are doing. I back myself up because that's the very nature of Debate! Don't expect me to lower my stances or think any different if all you can do is spout slanted and uneducated trash at me and expect me to take it at face value with nothing but insults.
And don't pull that "people are dying for your freedom" bullshit with me. Soldiers are dying, but in a country that was not in any way responsible for the hijacking. There was no direct threat to my freedoms until we went over there and kicked up a shitstorm, but the threat doesn't come from "our enemy." It comes from people like you and the current administration who are so cavalier about the destruction of something that's unstoppable, and the loss of our own liberty and country foundations at the expense of doing so.
You, sir, are a failure of the highest degree.
The first is all through the Clinton presidency Iraq had been thumbing its nose at the UN approved resolutions that ended the first gulf war.....you seem to forget that.
Second....Also all through the Clinton Era, America had seen the first WTC attacks, the bombing of several embassies throughout the world and the bombing of 1 of our warships. more terrorist attacks happened during thr Clinton administation than anyone elses......How proud you must feel of him for not doing anything about it. You must be excited to know that Syria had Bin Laden and Clinton didn't want him.....
Now you have a president that has said enough to all of this sucker punching by these terrorist, and he has stepped up to the plate and is fighting back with a spine. Proof?? How much more proof do you want?? There has NOT been another terror attack on US soil since 911.....there is your proof.
Since when is disagreeing with you and telling you why concidered an insult?
You lost me as to how I am a failure to the highest degree.
Ask any of the military personel that are over there or have been over there and they will tell you progress is being made, schools are being built etc.....
OH and then tell them..........lets see what did you say??..oh yes!!....."And don't pull that "people are dying for your freedom" bullshit with me". We will see how that sets with them...
With last comment of yours.....you can call me a failure all you want.......but you are...well........your quote says it all better than I could.
Besides what do you care what he says to me or about me......If it isn't directed to you let it go.....I can not be "insulted" on the internet. lol
Think about it PROPERLY please. 'Terrorism' in its most extreme sense, is one of the key issues surrounding rapists. You can't stop people from instigating fear. Not without doing so yourself (in which case your kinda dumb).lowing wrote:
"Terrorism cannot be stopped. It can only be controlled to a high degree". While there's conflict, there's terrorism." <quoted by Spark>
Well if terrorism can not be stopped then the only thing left to do is bow to the terrorist and give in to every demand, since you don't seem to think that blowing up 1 of our cities and killing thousands of American civilians is worth fighting for. Perhaps it is better to live as a puppet then to fight for freedom.
Oh well, so much for the "give me liberty or give me death"crap huh??.............you and Marconius scare the shit outta me with your logic.
Fine. If you're so sure about the terrorism attacks on US thing, think of this.
As an American citizen, what was the chance of you dying of the flu (or related diseases) in 2001?
Now, as an American citizen, what was the chance of you dying in a terrorist attack in 2001?
Its not that big a deal. We should fight it, but in the right way.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Uhhhhhhh did you just say terrorism in 2001 was not a big deal??!!.........Spark please man........you are killing me with posts like this.Spark wrote:
Think about it PROPERLY please. 'Terrorism' in its most extreme sense, is one of the key issues surrounding rapists. You can't stop people from instigating fear. Not without doing so yourself (in which case your kinda dumb).lowing wrote:
"Terrorism cannot be stopped. It can only be controlled to a high degree". While there's conflict, there's terrorism." <quoted by Spark>
Well if terrorism can not be stopped then the only thing left to do is bow to the terrorist and give in to every demand, since you don't seem to think that blowing up 1 of our cities and killing thousands of American civilians is worth fighting for. Perhaps it is better to live as a puppet then to fight for freedom.
Oh well, so much for the "give me liberty or give me death"crap huh??.............you and Marconius scare the shit outta me with your logic.
Fine. If you're so sure about the terrorism attacks on US thing, think of this.
As an American citizen, what was the chance of you dying of the flu (or related diseases) in 2001?
Now, as an American citizen, what was the chance of you dying in a terrorist attack in 2001?
Its not that big a deal. We should fight it, but in the right way.
Also, if you are saying that my daughter dying from a natural illness is the same end result as her being raped and murdered......You either have no emotion in you whatsoever.or ........you have no family
Last edited by lowing (2006-03-11 20:50:36)
Well... take suicide then.
When was the last time you heard about 'suicide prevention' ANYWHERE?
Also, that was an EXTREME view. I am not an absolutist nor an extremist.
When was the last time you heard about 'suicide prevention' ANYWHERE?
Also, that was an EXTREME view. I am not an absolutist nor an extremist.
Last edited by Spark (2006-03-11 21:20:14)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
I cannot agree with you in ANY respect. I saw you specified that there were no attacks on American soil or intrests prior to 9/11. You are wrong. To say that, you have to forget aboutt he bombing of the USS Cole aas well as the embassy bombings in Africa. Oh, and the attempt to strike the WTC back in '93.Spark wrote:
There was not an attack BEFORE 9/11. Before these p.o.s. 'security measures'. They've done bullshit, apart from allow the government to implement some very dangerous policies.
You are fighting something which cannot be defeated. Officials in the DHS know this. One said
"Terrorism cannot be stopped. It can only be controlled to a high degree". While there's conflict, there's terrorism.
I don't think the soldiers have much of an idea of what they're there for or why they're there. I have sympathy for the soldiers. The Vietnam War (which my parents were DIRECTILY involved) taught me that. It also, though, taught me that the military no longer gives a shit about who they kill.
"Where there is conflict, there is terrorism?" That is not quite correct. Terrorism is directing action against people who are innocent of the wrongdoing you are attacking them for. It is conducting a media war, among other things. It is to strike fear into your target. I could go on, but won't. The point is, only certain cultures view it as an acceptable form of conflict. A lot of cultures view it as cowardly.
As to your opinion about soldiers, I am offended and disgusted. Because of what your parents have told you about the Vietnam war, you think the military "Doesn't give a shit about who they kill?"
You are allowed your opinions. I doubt I could change them, after all. In spite of what you think, soldiers in the US military are not slobbering killers. I was in the army for 8 years. I didn't WANT to kill anyone. Was I willing to? yes. Why? To protect me and mine. In Iraq, the soldiers to their best to protect the civilian population. We have had people kill our troops, and then let them go because they hid behind a bunch of civilians when they ran. Vietnam was a LONG time ago. Our military learned lessons about it as well; it is not the same military that the US had 35 years ago. Times change.
Sorry Spark..........911 was an extreme event and calls for extreme actionSpark wrote:
Well... take suicide then.
When was the last time you heard about 'suicide prevention' ANYWHERE?
Also, that was an EXTREME view. I am not an absolutist nor an extremist.
I know one of the music producers on that movie.
Nick tha 1da.
Nick tha 1da.
I have a question for all you liberal morons.
Okay, say your Bush & Co. 911 attack was true. What would your adminitration do to combat terrorist attatcks such as USS Cole and US Ebassys?
Again, I have to say that whole Loose Change is funny. I can't believe there are people out there that would think our own government would do such a thing. And to do it during daylight? Go back to your Michael Moore lives and come up with a better theory to entertain us please!
Don't even bring the Katrina aid into this!!!
Okay, say your Bush & Co. 911 attack was true. What would your adminitration do to combat terrorist attatcks such as USS Cole and US Ebassys?
Again, I have to say that whole Loose Change is funny. I can't believe there are people out there that would think our own government would do such a thing. And to do it during daylight? Go back to your Michael Moore lives and come up with a better theory to entertain us please!
Don't even bring the Katrina aid into this!!!
OK, Spark, I have to disagree with your posting about "No Terrorist attacks on US Soil pre-9/11." I've actually already had a large debate about this with Horseman in another thread, and all it will do is run into a circular "Bush's Fault!! / B-B-B-But CLINTON!!!" flame war.
To break it down AGAIN:
'93 - WTC 1 attack takes place less than 30 days into Clinton's presidency. Clinton hunts down and imprisons the three people responsible. Case Closed.
'98 - Attacks on US Embassies in Africa resulted in Clinton retaliating with Tomahawk missiles against key targets in Sudan and Afghanistan. Case closed.
'00 - USS Cole bombed. Clinton responds by assigning Richard Clarke to the case, and Clarke drafts up a perfect way to completely eradicate al Qaeda (Freezing their assets, taking out the fake charities that give them money, offer diplomacy and negotiation to the countries that reluctantly harbored them, etc). Clarke stays in his post when the Bush administration took office, but they failed to listen to Clarke's warnings nor read his paper. They finally agreed to listen to him on Sept. 4th, 2001. Guess what happens next?
Anyways, I Will stand on the issue that Terrorism cannot be stopped. It can only be controlled, and that doesn't mean "bow out of the fight and give them free reign," lowing...
It's where Diplomacy and negotiation comes in, for the attacked country to ask for support from the harboring nations. Under the definition of terrorism, the U.S. committed it ourselves with the Shock and Awe campaign. Oh, and when do we go up against Aum Shinrikyo? The IRA? When will the US eradicate the KKK down south? Those are all terrorist organizations. How about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which has reduced itself to terrorism on both sides to get their points across. Do we end up taking sides? Or do we eradicate them all because they've committed terrorism?
Or is this all just a thinly veiled attempt at eradicating only One Form of islamic terrorism...and eliminating it in a way that will only breed more violence. Constantly killing terrorists will only urge more people into the terrorist groups...you have to go to the countries and governments a lá Clarke's plan and strip away the terrorists' assets. At this point in the game, it seems way too late for that, and we will be in a constant firefight with them until we leave, and then we will experience real terrorist attacks against our own soil in complete retaliation for our occupancy.
To break it down AGAIN:
'93 - WTC 1 attack takes place less than 30 days into Clinton's presidency. Clinton hunts down and imprisons the three people responsible. Case Closed.
'98 - Attacks on US Embassies in Africa resulted in Clinton retaliating with Tomahawk missiles against key targets in Sudan and Afghanistan. Case closed.
'00 - USS Cole bombed. Clinton responds by assigning Richard Clarke to the case, and Clarke drafts up a perfect way to completely eradicate al Qaeda (Freezing their assets, taking out the fake charities that give them money, offer diplomacy and negotiation to the countries that reluctantly harbored them, etc). Clarke stays in his post when the Bush administration took office, but they failed to listen to Clarke's warnings nor read his paper. They finally agreed to listen to him on Sept. 4th, 2001. Guess what happens next?
Anyways, I Will stand on the issue that Terrorism cannot be stopped. It can only be controlled, and that doesn't mean "bow out of the fight and give them free reign," lowing...
It's where Diplomacy and negotiation comes in, for the attacked country to ask for support from the harboring nations. Under the definition of terrorism, the U.S. committed it ourselves with the Shock and Awe campaign. Oh, and when do we go up against Aum Shinrikyo? The IRA? When will the US eradicate the KKK down south? Those are all terrorist organizations. How about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which has reduced itself to terrorism on both sides to get their points across. Do we end up taking sides? Or do we eradicate them all because they've committed terrorism?
Or is this all just a thinly veiled attempt at eradicating only One Form of islamic terrorism...and eliminating it in a way that will only breed more violence. Constantly killing terrorists will only urge more people into the terrorist groups...you have to go to the countries and governments a lá Clarke's plan and strip away the terrorists' assets. At this point in the game, it seems way too late for that, and we will be in a constant firefight with them until we leave, and then we will experience real terrorist attacks against our own soil in complete retaliation for our occupancy.
good post Marconius........let me hit ya with this:...............you said terrorism con not be stopped, then later you say the KKK is a terrorist group (of which I agree). Well the KKK has been stopped, reduced to a few non-news worthy rallies that draw more counter deminstrators than Clansmen.....the KKK was stopped by a change in the hearts and minds of the people of this land. the people has decreed that they have had enough of this shit and started to fight back.....This of course is a smaller scale to the world events, but the solution is the same. the people of the world have to recognize who the good guys are and who the bad guys are in this war then they have to take a stand and say ENOUGH. They can do this by all the worlds nations standing to gether even on this 1 issue and deny the terrorist safe harbor... America is leading this charge, the next move belongs to the rest of the worlds nations....whats it gunna be??Marconius wrote:
OK, Spark, I have to disagree with your posting about "No Terrorist attacks on US Soil pre-9/11." I've actually already had a large debate about this with Horseman in another thread, and all it will do is run into a circular "Bush's Fault!! / B-B-B-But CLINTON!!!" flame war.
To break it down AGAIN:
'93 - WTC 1 attack takes place less than 30 days into Clinton's presidency. Clinton hunts down and imprisons the three people responsible. Case Closed.
'98 - Attacks on US Embassies in Africa resulted in Clinton retaliating with Tomahawk missiles against key targets in Sudan and Afghanistan. Case closed.
'00 - USS Cole bombed. Clinton responds by assigning Richard Clarke to the case, and Clarke drafts up a perfect way to completely eradicate al Qaeda (Freezing their assets, taking out the fake charities that give them money, offer diplomacy and negotiation to the countries that reluctantly harbored them, etc). Clarke stays in his post when the Bush administration took office, but they failed to listen to Clarke's warnings nor read his paper. They finally agreed to listen to him on Sept. 4th, 2001. Guess what happens next?
Anyways, I Will stand on the issue that Terrorism cannot be stopped. It can only be controlled, and that doesn't mean "bow out of the fight and give them free reign," lowing...
It's where Diplomacy and negotiation comes in, for the attacked country to ask for support from the harboring nations. Under the definition of terrorism, the U.S. committed it ourselves with the Shock and Awe campaign. Oh, and when do we go up against Aum Shinrikyo? The IRA? When will the US eradicate the KKK down south? Those are all terrorist organizations. How about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which has reduced itself to terrorism on both sides to get their points across. Do we end up taking sides? Or do we eradicate them all because they've committed terrorism?
Or is this all just a thinly veiled attempt at eradicating only One Form of islamic terrorism...and eliminating it in a way that will only breed more violence. Constantly killing terrorists will only urge more people into the terrorist groups...you have to go to the countries and governments a lá Clarke's plan and strip away the terrorists' assets. At this point in the game, it seems way too late for that, and we will be in a constant firefight with them until we leave, and then we will experience real terrorist attacks against our own soil in complete retaliation for our occupancy.
Well, that's what I'm saying, lowing. The way to win is by asking the harboring countries for help and being diplomatic about it, not by just going on in and trying to hunt them down one by one. The problem is, due to the U.S. meddling with Middle Eastern affairs in the past, the "good vs. bad" conflict might turn out a bit different than expected, especially now after the Iraq invasion. We see ourselves as Good because we are attempting to retaliate for 9/11, plus we've removed a dictator from power and are promoting democracy. They can see us as bad because we've killed their civilians and our actions have sparked sectarian violence and a definite Civil/religious War, plus their new government is basically a retaliatory theocracy in action. Whereas in America, there was a majority against the KKK, this doesn't seem to be so in the Middle East.
But if diplomacy doesn't work......(which in this case, it hasn't)........what are you left with? running away if not stand up and fight........These terrorists are killing wayyyyyyyyyy more of their countrymen then we are......America is trying to build, while the terrorist destroy....AND when we kill civilians it is comletely unintentional, they do it maliciously. there is a difference.......There are no negotiations with terrorists.........You can not speak rationally with a irrational person............you can not apply sane ideas to the insane..........you can not bring a murderer to justice by scolding him...Marconius wrote:
Well, that's what I'm saying, lowing. The way to win is by asking the harboring countries for help and being diplomatic about it, not by just going on in and trying to hunt them down one by one. The problem is, due to the U.S. meddling with Middle Eastern affairs in the past, the "good vs. bad" conflict might turn out a bit different than expected, especially now after the Iraq invasion. We see ourselves as Good because we are attempting to retaliate for 9/11, plus we've removed a dictator from power and are promoting democracy. They can see us as bad because we've killed their civilians and our actions have sparked sectarian violence and a definite Civil/religious War, plus their new government is basically a retaliatory theocracy in action. Whereas in America, there was a majority against the KKK, this doesn't seem to be so in the Middle East.
oh and let me add...............don't think for a minute that the demise of the KKK would not have come about by civil war........It just never escalated to that level because they were broken before it came to that ....it would be great if the world affairs could say the same thing.......but it can't so here we are......Sometimes you have to fight
Last edited by lowing (2006-03-12 12:08:30)
And if you remove their means of obtaining weapons and explosives? This is where it gets circular, as it's escalated so far at this point. It is naïve to think that it can be solved only through diplomacy at this point, but terrorists will keep coming and they will do what they can to eliminate us, and our soldiers will continue to die until someone can figure out a correct way to deal with them
'98 - Attacks on US Embassies in Tanzinia and Kenya resulted in Clinton retaliating with Tomahawk missiles against key targets in Sudan and Afghanistan.
key target in Sudan = Empty tents in sand Vaporized by multi million dollar missiles.
From the " We showed them ! " Dept. lol
Refused to Strike at Osama When CIA agents had him clearly targeted.
Attack on Khandahar Towers Marine Barracks Unanswerd
USS DD Cole Unaswerd.
New President...
No more attacks since 911
from the " You fucked with the Wrong guy ! " Dept.
Terrorist are not Dumb people, They are not bound by Election cycles as US leaders are. They can wait for a Liberal President with no ability to lead. A masturbater type if you will. They know if America loses its spine and the Liberal classic " lack of will " wins out. They will have another Clinton / Carter Type as an opponent. It will be Base Rape and spawn kill on US citizens for 4 to 8 years just like 92 to 2000
key target in Sudan = Empty tents in sand Vaporized by multi million dollar missiles.
From the " We showed them ! " Dept. lol
Refused to Strike at Osama When CIA agents had him clearly targeted.
Attack on Khandahar Towers Marine Barracks Unanswerd
USS DD Cole Unaswerd.
New President...
No more attacks since 911
from the " You fucked with the Wrong guy ! " Dept.
Terrorist are not Dumb people, They are not bound by Election cycles as US leaders are. They can wait for a Liberal President with no ability to lead. A masturbater type if you will. They know if America loses its spine and the Liberal classic " lack of will " wins out. They will have another Clinton / Carter Type as an opponent. It will be Base Rape and spawn kill on US citizens for 4 to 8 years just like 92 to 2000
Not very subtle, but I think you have made a point. lolHorseman 77 wrote:
'98 - Attacks on US Embassies in Tanzinia and Kenya resulted in Clinton retaliating with Tomahawk missiles against key targets in Sudan and Afghanistan.
key target in Sudan = Empty tents in sand Vaporized by multi million dollar missiles.
From the " We showed them ! " Dept. lol
Refused to Strike at Osama When CIA agents had him clearly targeted.
Attack on Khandahar Towers Marine Barracks Unanswerd
USS DD Cole Unaswerd.
New President...
No more attacks since 911
from the " You fucked with the Wrong guy ! " Dept.
Terrorist are not Dumb people, They are not bound by Election cycles as US leaders are. They can wait for a Liberal President with no ability to lead. A masturbater type if you will. They know if America loses its spine and the Liberal classic " lack of will " wins out. They will have another Clinton / Carter Type as an opponent. It will be Base Rape and spawn kill on US citizens for 4 to 8 years just like 92 to 2000
I'll stop you right there Horseman. You lost the Clinton vs. Terrorist argument in our other thread, and I don't want it to continue here. Stay on topic.
Terrorists are indiscriminant on leaders. They will do what they can to remove the threats that they are willed against by their own leaders.
Terrorists are indiscriminant on leaders. They will do what they can to remove the threats that they are willed against by their own leaders.
Well you and I could go round and round on this so there really is 2 choices here since I think we both agree diplomacy is out.Marconius wrote:
And if you remove their means of obtaining weapons and explosives? This is where it gets circular, as it's escalated so far at this point. It is naïve to think that it can be solved only through diplomacy at this point, but terrorists will keep coming and they will do what they can to eliminate us, and our soldiers will continue to die until someone can figure out a correct way to deal with them
Fight
Run
I think America is doing right by fighting.....yes it is a mess, but most fights are and you are taking a stand.
Run? You still have a mess ( 911 ) and you cower to anybody that raises a fist at you...
this is the essance of all this discussion
Bottom line........which do you perfer??
Last edited by lowing (2006-03-12 12:52:58)
At this point, I think we should get our troops out of there. Knowing what I know from the PNAC, the soldiers are dying in vain for a lost cause being pushed by the Bush administration. But that goes against Nationalistic thought.
The troops should be in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia hunting down al Qaeda, like they should've been in the first place, not occupying Iraq. Again, that goes against pro-democracy/Nationalist thought that wanted Saddam removed (despite the fact that he was able to quell sectarian violence by remaining a secular ruler, very much unlike the democratic theocracy being instated).
We're just going to have to agree to disagree.
The troops should be in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia hunting down al Qaeda, like they should've been in the first place, not occupying Iraq. Again, that goes against pro-democracy/Nationalist thought that wanted Saddam removed (despite the fact that he was able to quell sectarian violence by remaining a secular ruler, very much unlike the democratic theocracy being instated).
We're just going to have to agree to disagree.
Do you not think that by pulling our troops out without a stable govt. in place that you have just opened the worlds first terrorist amusement park and convention center??....We can not let a whole nation fall into their hands, most Iraqis ( now I admit, this is second hand) seem to want us there and are glad for our assistance. Do we really turn our backs on them?............(again)Marconius wrote:
At this point, I think we should get our troops out of there. Knowing what I know from the PNAC, the soldiers are dying in vain for a lost cause being pushed by the Bush administration. But that goes against Nationalistic thought.
The troops should be in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia hunting down al Qaeda, like they should've been in the first place, not occupying Iraq. Again, that goes against pro-democracy/Nationalist thought that wanted Saddam removed (despite the fact that he was able to quell sectarian violence by remaining a secular ruler, very much unlike the democratic theocracy being instated).
We're just going to have to agree to disagree.