Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#161
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 13:16:27 -0400, Dave Hall wrote:
Much snipped Maybe you're right. We should probably just develop a genetic virus that kills only arabs. Is that high enough a standard for you? This was the subject of a novel I read a few months ago. Don't remember the name, but the premise was the same. John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
#162
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
John H wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 13:16:27 -0400, Dave Hall wrote: Much snipped Maybe you're right. We should probably just develop a genetic virus that kills only arabs. Is that high enough a standard for you? This was the subject of a novel I read a few months ago. Don't remember the name, but the premise was the same. John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! Gosh, Herring, I had no idea Classic Comix had expanded its coverage. |
#163
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#164
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 07:40:40 -0400, Dave Hall wrote:
You make a good point here. We probably should re-evauate our tactics. Tanks and bombs probably aren't the answer. But some form of force is. Before we can do that though, we have to loosen up on the idea that covert operations are "sneaky" or "underhanded". Not underhanded, just incredibly stupid. How do you think Saddam came to power in the first place? http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/f...s98/saddam.htm Once Iraq becomes stable and the people taste what it's like to be self governing, I can't see why they would prefer to be oppressed by a fanatical fundamentalist religious fanatic. The terrorists are running scared. They know as well as we do, that once their people taste freedom, there will be no turning back, and their power base will evaporate. And when Iran was once a democracy? What happened? http://www.angelfire.com/home/iran/1953coup.html We support a cadre of ruthless dictators as long as they share our interests. Like who? Too numerous to name here, so a link: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US...dictators.html At the same time we talk about democracy and free elections. The hypocracy is so shameful as to render our proclamations of freedom utter nonsense. We would prefer that all dictatorships go away and be replaced by democratic governments. Unfortunately we don't have the right to force this on people unless (as in the case in Iraq) that government poses a potential threat to world stability and our safety. If the oppressive dictatorship is relatively benign (They aren't researching WMD, killing thousands of it's own citizens, or invading a neighboring country) When did our foreign policy change? http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Bl...Hope_page.html |
#165
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "thunder" wrote in message news ![]() On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 11:01:46 -0400, mono sect wrote: Looking at these numbers helps one to understand the wisdom of our forefathers in creating the Electoral College system. The difference in the vote count in just New York City might have elected Al Gore, in a popular vote only system. http://www.rosecity.net/al_gore/election_map.html There's considerable blue on that map. If land could vote, but it can't, so what's your point? Inner city dwellers have are disproportionately Democrat and may be more inclined to vote democrat due to being poor or an immigent. Then there is Democrat run Preciencts that cannot account for missing ballots or why a superviser was found with a voting machine in the trunk of her car! What's my point? Inner city dwellers do not represent America, nor should their vote have more influence than rural area's There were several reasons our founding fathers set up the Electoral College. One of them was to avoid partisan politics. http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf |
#166
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 07:33:59 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote: If that's what we're left with, and if in terms of practicality, we kill lots of innocent civilians, too, we're not demonstrating much difference between us and those we go after. The difference is we don't kill people for no reason. Thus, you enunciate the basic flaw in your logic and thinking. You assume that the terrorists who were involved in 9-11 "killed people for no reason." That is not correct. The terrorists did (and do) kill for a reason or reasons. That reason may not be justifed and rational to you or me, but I assure you, it is to them. They have an agenda. They have demands. But to kill innocent people to get our attention to those demands is, IMHO barbaric and excessive. Common sense should also tell you that if we let things like 9/11 give them the attention that they demand, that it only validates their methods, and empowers others to do the same thing. Further, we do kill people for no reason, or at least, no acceptable reason. If you think otherwise, you are very, very naive. Cite examples please. We didn't fly airplanes into tall buildings to make a political point. We don't have to; we have missiles and bombs we can fire off or drop from altitude. When have we ever fired missiles or dropped bombs to make the world sit up and take notice to our political agenda? If the terrorists refuse to follow the terms of war as defined by the Geneva convention, then they should be the ones responsible for the lives of the people that they willingly place in harm's way. Well, that's certainly an easy way out for us and a nice rationalization. What other alternative is there? Either we both play by the same rules or one of us is at a serious tactical disadvantage. What your kind of thinking leads to is...more killing...on both sides. The difference is, when we're done killing the enemy and making them cry "uncle" the killing will stop. They will not stop killing until they meet their objectives, which is the extermination of "infidels". If we give in (weakness) to their demands, they will only make more. It's so unfortunate we don't seem to have reliable intel or even reliable Iraqis on the ground in their country, eh? I wouldn't know, and neither do you. Neither one of us has a "need to know". Dave Yeah, we do. We may not need to know "the intel," but we sure as hell need to know if the intel our supposed leaders get is reliable and, if it is, whether they pay attention to it, or whether they pursue an idiotic political agenda in spite of reliable intel. Just think what might have happened if we have the mass media network, the internet, and satellite technology during WWII. There would 've been the same uninformed civilian armchair quarterbacking. Sometimes, we (think we) know too much. Maybe we should just let the people involved do their jobs instead of throwing out constant criticism and making false or inaccurate conjectures which do nothing by undermine our ability. You know, sort of like the idiotic political agenda and warmongering the Bush administration is pursuing. When you don't know all the facts, and fall victim to the biased ramblings of opposing sides with their own agendas, it's not hard to come to that conclusion. Dave |
#167
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 07:37:07 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote: Dave Hall wrote: On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 14:42:10 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: Dave Hall wrote: On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 11:41:56 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: Am I a neocon because I looked in a M-W dictionary? John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! No, you are a neocon because you are a rigid, mindless fool who accepts virtually every line of bull**** the neocons feed you. As opposed to you, a rigid mindless fool who accepts virtually every line of bull**** the liberals and emotionally driven writer hacks feed you? That's simply not true, Dave. I have different opinions on a number of significant issues with the presumed Democratic standard=bearer and with the true liberals in my party. Anyone can say that. No one is 100% in lock step with anyone's political party. As for the emotionally driven "writer hacks," I suspect you are just jealous, as your writing skills are rudimentary. I am hardly "jealous". I at least have the integrity to report facts, Dave, you wouldn't know a fact if it bit you on the ass. Really? I'm not the one cutting and pasting biased political tripe and passing it off as fact. Your simple-minded, right-wing pronouncements from "on the mount" are the epitome of silliness. Only because you are so rigid in your thinking that you refuse to consider the other side. The difference is that I can cite logical, economical, and psychological reasoning to support my side. All you can do is offer up even more cut and paste vitriol laced opinions from other morally bankrupt and intellectually dishonest writer hacks. Dave |
#168
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Harry,
Keep up the good work, you have Dave in the corner. I think I love you, you are so witty and kewl, not stupid and ignorant like the right wing borg that pollute this ng. "Dave Hall" wrote in message ... On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 07:33:59 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: If that's what we're left with, and if in terms of practicality, we kill lots of innocent civilians, too, we're not demonstrating much difference between us and those we go after. The difference is we don't kill people for no reason. Thus, you enunciate the basic flaw in your logic and thinking. You assume that the terrorists who were involved in 9-11 "killed people for no reason." That is not correct. The terrorists did (and do) kill for a reason or reasons. That reason may not be justifed and rational to you or me, but I assure you, it is to them. They have an agenda. They have demands. But to kill innocent people to get our attention to those demands is, IMHO barbaric and excessive. Common sense should also tell you that if we let things like 9/11 give them the attention that they demand, that it only validates their methods, and empowers others to do the same thing. Further, we do kill people for no reason, or at least, no acceptable reason. If you think otherwise, you are very, very naive. Cite examples please. We didn't fly airplanes into tall buildings to make a political point. We don't have to; we have missiles and bombs we can fire off or drop from altitude. When have we ever fired missiles or dropped bombs to make the world sit up and take notice to our political agenda? If the terrorists refuse to follow the terms of war as defined by the Geneva convention, then they should be the ones responsible for the lives of the people that they willingly place in harm's way. Well, that's certainly an easy way out for us and a nice rationalization. What other alternative is there? Either we both play by the same rules or one of us is at a serious tactical disadvantage. What your kind of thinking leads to is...more killing...on both sides. The difference is, when we're done killing the enemy and making them cry "uncle" the killing will stop. They will not stop killing until they meet their objectives, which is the extermination of "infidels". If we give in (weakness) to their demands, they will only make more. It's so unfortunate we don't seem to have reliable intel or even reliable Iraqis on the ground in their country, eh? I wouldn't know, and neither do you. Neither one of us has a "need to know". Dave Yeah, we do. We may not need to know "the intel," but we sure as hell need to know if the intel our supposed leaders get is reliable and, if it is, whether they pay attention to it, or whether they pursue an idiotic political agenda in spite of reliable intel. Just think what might have happened if we have the mass media network, the internet, and satellite technology during WWII. There would 've been the same uninformed civilian armchair quarterbacking. Sometimes, we (think we) know too much. Maybe we should just let the people involved do their jobs instead of throwing out constant criticism and making false or inaccurate conjectures which do nothing by undermine our ability. You know, sort of like the idiotic political agenda and warmongering the Bush administration is pursuing. When you don't know all the facts, and fall victim to the biased ramblings of opposing sides with their own agendas, it's not hard to come to that conclusion. Dave |
#169
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 12:08:27 -0400, thunder
wrote: On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 07:40:40 -0400, Dave Hall wrote: You make a good point here. We probably should re-evauate our tactics. Tanks and bombs probably aren't the answer. But some form of force is. Before we can do that though, we have to loosen up on the idea that covert operations are "sneaky" or "underhanded". Not underhanded, just incredibly stupid. How do you think Saddam came to power in the first place? http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/f...s98/saddam.htm Well, we have people here opposed to overt military action. The alternative is covert military action. Once Iraq becomes stable and the people taste what it's like to be self governing, I can't see why they would prefer to be oppressed by a fanatical fundamentalist religious fanatic. The terrorists are running scared. They know as well as we do, that once their people taste freedom, there will be no turning back, and their power base will evaporate. And when Iran was once a democracy? What happened? When you have a society which does not allow the right to own arms or some other means to defend itself, it can easily be taken over by an ambitious person with charisma, and the inside track to the military. Many people can also be swayed to support someone by the promises of a better life. Once that person seizes power, they are free to oppress the people, establish a police state and rule by fear and intimidation http://www.angelfire.com/home/iran/1953coup.html We support a cadre of ruthless dictators as long as they share our interests. Like who? Too numerous to name here, so a link: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US...dictators.html At the same time we talk about democracy and free elections. The hypocracy is so shameful as to render our proclamations of freedom utter nonsense. We would prefer that all dictatorships go away and be replaced by democratic governments. Unfortunately we don't have the right to force this on people unless (as in the case in Iraq) that government poses a potential threat to world stability and our safety. If the oppressive dictatorship is relatively benign (They aren't researching WMD, killing thousands of it's own citizens, or invading a neighboring country) When did our foreign policy change? http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Bl...Hope_page.html This site features the writing of someone who is so obviously left biased that their objectivity is highly questionable. The author borders on paranoid schizophrenia, as he tried to paint the picture of the U.S. government looking for imaginary communists under every stone in every country. Communism WAS a legitimate threat. The human rights and economic freedoms of the people under those rules were significantl;y less than under our system of freedom and an open economy. While we have historically adopted an "enemy of my enemy is my friend" philosophy with regard to foreign relations, which has backfired in our face (Iraq for example) no country in the world has done more to advance the ideals of freedom and self determination than the U.S. I challenge you to find any FACTUAL accounts to the contrary. The democratic free market model is far superior to a socialist one, no matter what Mr. Blum seems to think. Dave |
#170
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Dave Hall wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 07:33:59 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: If that's what we're left with, and if in terms of practicality, we kill lots of innocent civilians, too, we're not demonstrating much difference between us and those we go after. The difference is we don't kill people for no reason. Thus, you enunciate the basic flaw in your logic and thinking. You assume that the terrorists who were involved in 9-11 "killed people for no reason." That is not correct. The terrorists did (and do) kill for a reason or reasons. That reason may not be justifed and rational to you or me, but I assure you, it is to them. They have an agenda. They have demands. But to kill innocent people to get our attention to those demands is, IMHO barbaric and excessive. Common sense should also tell you that if we let things like 9/11 give them the attention that they demand, that it only validates their methods, and empowers others to do the same thing. Further, we do kill people for no reason, or at least, no acceptable reason. If you think otherwise, you are very, very naive. Cite examples please. We didn't fly airplanes into tall buildings to make a political point. We don't have to; we have missiles and bombs we can fire off or drop from altitude. When have we ever fired missiles or dropped bombs to make the world sit up and take notice to our political agenda? If the terrorists refuse to follow the terms of war as defined by the Geneva convention, then they should be the ones responsible for the lives of the people that they willingly place in harm's way. Well, that's certainly an easy way out for us and a nice rationalization. What other alternative is there? Either we both play by the same rules or one of us is at a serious tactical disadvantage. What your kind of thinking leads to is...more killing...on both sides. The difference is, when we're done killing the enemy and making them cry "uncle" the killing will stop. They will not stop killing until they meet their objectives, which is the extermination of "infidels". If we give in (weakness) to their demands, they will only make more. It's so unfortunate we don't seem to have reliable intel or even reliable Iraqis on the ground in their country, eh? I wouldn't know, and neither do you. Neither one of us has a "need to know". Dave Yeah, we do. We may not need to know "the intel," but we sure as hell need to know if the intel our supposed leaders get is reliable and, if it is, whether they pay attention to it, or whether they pursue an idiotic political agenda in spite of reliable intel. Just think what might have happened if we have the mass media network, the internet, and satellite technology during WWII. There would 've been the same uninformed civilian armchair quarterbacking. Sometimes, we (think we) know too much. Maybe we should just let the people involved do their jobs instead of throwing out constant criticism and making false or inaccurate conjectures which do nothing by undermine our ability. Are you actually advocating that we should simply sit back and allow the idiots and lunatics in the Bush Administration "carry on" with their insane agenda without questioning or criticizing them? You're in a real time warp here, Dave...you would have preferred to live in the old Soviet Union. One of the basic problems of the Bush Administration is that it does not know how to do its job. It is incompetent. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|