| Author | Message | ||
| Dr Tommy Cosgrove (Vwalfa4re)
Member Username: Vwalfa4re Post Number: 969 Registered: 5-2001 |
I also fully and completely believe that if you are an Al-Quada member you should be shot in the head upon sight. NO exceptions and I don't give a damn what people think about my feelings about that so save your typing fingers trying to convince me otherwise. Just move on. | ||
| Dr Tommy Cosgrove (Vwalfa4re)
Member Username: Vwalfa4re Post Number: 968 Registered: 5-2001 |
I've never known the bloods and the crips to be productive members of society, in fact they are nothing but a threat to our safety. Who cares if the get locked up for being in a gang. I'll sure sleep better if they are off the street. Who wouldn't? | ||
| wm hart (Whart)
Member Username: Whart Post Number: 845 Registered: 12-2001 |
Is the gang committing crimes? If so, yes. To paraphrase Mae West, "Gimme a hard one." | ||
| Randall (Randall)
Junior Member Username: Randall Post Number: 214 Registered: 1-2003 |
Do you think gang members (ie, bloods/crips) should be jailed for being in a gang? How long should they be locked up for? | ||
| wm hart (Whart)
Member Username: Whart Post Number: 843 Registered: 12-2001 |
Hugh: i think you and i would fight in the same army abroad; the only question seems to be the home front, and since i don't do anything arguably illegal except perhaps, go above 55 mph on the occasional road, i would not have a problem with an Ashcroft-run police state. Enjoy. | ||
| Hubert Otlik (Hugh)
Member Username: Hugh Post Number: 656 Registered: 1-2002 |
Bill- "..which is a form of passivity even in the face of clear provocation. In other words, are there instances where war or a preemptive strike is considered justified among some of the strongest critics of this conflict?.." Now, in my attempts at neutrality with the issue at hand, I can only offer what surely is an obtuse summation of the issues; however, I'll dribble the ball a bit longer. In your case of "passivity" in the face of "provocation" I believe you could make a very rational argument for attack and appeal to both sides if you more clearly defined "provocation"? I do not believe that there would be an issue if: a. we were attacked, b. saddam presented a clear and present danger (i.e., had missles pointed at the US, it's allies, or fiscal interests. something akin to the cuban missle crisis), or c. if he was harboring (willingly and defianltly) parties known by the US to be responsible for actions of terrorism, aggression, etc. against our nation; then, no argument could be made against a "pre-emptive strike" (i.e. call the aggressor out on his bluf). However, at present, "provocation" and "passivity" are mutually exclusive, and fundamentally immiscable ideals; that is, at the present time, there is no concise act of provocation (defiance? Of course. But provocation?) that has justified the current mission in Irag. Therefore, there is no passivity, it is rather a denouncing of aggression by this country, and endangering the lives of US service men/women to defend against a yet unresolved threat. My pause in the matter of pre-emptive action is more fundamental than the Middle East conflicts. It is rooted in a concern for dillution or even dissolution of fundamnetal constatutional rights; if congress believes in pre-emptive actions against a forgein (soverign) nation, what likely chance will the not approve limitation of rights (i.e., homeland defense act legislation, suspension of due process, etc.) domestically? We can go round and round here forever. You can, justifiably, argue for forced tranquility in the middle east by US military intervention; however, the cost of US military lives, cost, and domestic effects of such a tenure in the middle east must also be brought into account. Lastly, if, indeed, ACTIVE al queda cells are found, anywhere in the world, the extraction and elimination of these cells is justifiable, as, in my eyes, they are known enemys of the state, and have, by their participation in this group made actions against our well being; however, I underline the neccessity of an active group, thats has solid intentions on attacking the US. There is still a lot to be said for passive intervention on behalf of the intelligence agencies that this country has at its disposal. Re: mogadishu (sp?) Yes, the incident evolved around a failed mission to "extract" a military kingpin; a black hawk helicopter went down, and urban warfare insued; the US service men were out numbered in gross disprportion (essentially an entire city turned on them), and 18 men (including highly trained men) were killed. The professor at Columbia needs to re-read the definition of hypocrite. Love you too. I'm off to Laguna Seca. See you guys around. | ||
| wm hart (Whart)
Member Username: Whart Post Number: 842 Registered: 12-2001 |
Hey, Hugh: As you said, this conflict leaves alot of room for argument on all sides. What i was trying to do was to isolate one issue in the peace movement, which is a form of passivity even in the face of clear provocation. In other words, are there instances where war or a preemptive strike is considered justified among some of the strongest critics of this conflict? As to that •••••• bag from Columbia, i have no understanding of his "principles" which lead him to condemn our military action (presumably, because it involves unjustified violence), but which enable him to call for a million acts of ambush against us. If i remember, the Mogadishu event occurred against a backdrop where Rangers and others went into that city to "extract" a hostile warlord and his minions. Our guys then got trapped, and partly because we didn't go in with huge force, were overwhelmed and cornered by an irregular force which included combatants lurking among women and children. As to our acting as a police force, i think it is a mistake to pretend that we are acting for the benefit of others. I do, however, support the notion that we can go into other countries and take care of (ie, destroy) threats to our national security, particularly where the regime harboring them is either hostile or indifferent. I appreciate that, in the present conflict against Iraq, we haven't made a good case for an imminent threat, although i still feel Saddam deserves killing. I rationalize the current war on the basis that it gives us a foothold into the Middle East, which is a hotbed of virulent hatred of the US. I don't believe that education and diplomacy will rid us of this threat, and therefore would support further military incursions there, including against our friends, the Saudis, until we are satisfied that they get the message that there is a price to be paid for attacking us. (But, i still love you). | ||
| Hubert Otlik (Hugh)
Member Username: Hugh Post Number: 654 Registered: 1-2002 |
That was, indeed, tactless; however, we all cherish our right to free speech and the good professor elected to use his. Should we silence this man? Black list him? Try him for treason? I don't agree with him, nor would I "protest" this military action by the calling out for harm, injury, or death to the men and women burdoned with the task of acting out, for now, and to many, an unjustified attack upon a soverign nation. As both sides of this debate have a lot of points to argue; the indoctrination of "pre-emptive" stricks against nations "alleged", "suspected", or "possibly" harboring (possibly unwillingly) terrorists is a shaky proposition; nothing against removing those terrorists, nor tumbling regimes (if they've made actions against our interests), but moving to a foreground of "pre-emptive" measures speaks against what many here feel is the need to reel in the task of US armed forces as an international police force. | ||
| wm hart (Whart)
Member Username: Whart Post Number: 840 Registered: 12-2001 |
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Professor-Somalia.html | ||
| wm hart (Whart)
Member Username: Whart Post Number: 839 Registered: 12-2001 |
Heard part of a radio report this a.m. referring to an event at Columbia University here in NY, where a Prof. of Anthropology allegedly stated that he hoped our venture into Iraq came to a Mogadishu (SP)-like result. Can anyone identify this Prof. and establish precisely what he said? | ||
| MFZ (Kiyoharu)
Junior Member Username: Kiyoharu Post Number: 150 Registered: 2-2003 |
Not all of them are Muslims, I believe, in the sense that not all of the Bosnians were Muslims. I myself didn't know they were until the news started to appear on the papers and on TV. Probably they don't appear to be Muslims due to the stereotype that Muslims are usually Asians or Africans and not Caucasians or looking like Caucasians. "is it because its not on tv 24/7? is it because nobody cares about chechnya or can't find it on a map? is it because the french don't see gaining any mileage trying to oppose the russians. is it because everybody knows russia is unlikely to be moved one iota by outside suggestions. or is it simply because it is not america pulling the trigger." All of the above I think. Most certainly the first one, and very likely the last one as well. And like I have pointed out earlier, people tend to sympathize the victim party if there was an actual invading foreign force there. The Russians doesn't seem to be the typical foreign invading force since they technically used to rule Chechnya before, they just can't seem to let go in this particular case. Just as the US seems to pick an easy prey (in this case Iraq), I guess the protestors tend to pick easy prey as well (inthis case the US), and Russia isn't exactly one, as unfortunately, there's very little Russian-made products to boycott. Yes, there should be something done to it, but I checked the latest news, and apparently there was a referendum to see if the Chechnyans want self-rule or back to Russian rule. Polls show support for Russian rule, but there's reports of the separatists saying that the vote was rigged and all. I see a parallel situation more like the MILF vs Phillippines or East Timor vs Indonesia right now. | ||
| ross koller (Ross)
Member Username: Ross Post Number: 911 Registered: 3-2002 |
mfz, my comment regarding chechnya was actually not specifically directed at you. i know you know where it is. but now that you have opined... the parallels i was thinking of are more along the lines of a dominant power trying to exert its will on a lesser opponent in defiance of the un; the chechnyans are muslim; the russians are obviously not taking any care to not target civilians; the area they occupy actually has some oil and other strategic value that the russians could be accused of wanting, etc the war, conflict, spat (however you want to describe it), has so far resulted in the deaths of approximately 13,000 chechnyan fighters and estimates of at least that many civilians. there has been no effort by the russians to relieve any humanitarian crisis in that area as a result of the fighting. there has been zero reaction to this from the rest of the muslim world despite more muslims dying in this conflict than any other since kosovo. there are zero protest marches in western capitals in support of the chechnyans. although there has been some effort made by the usa to shame the russians into letting up, little has come of it. the french and germans have not made much of an issue of it, as far as i know. nobody is boycotting russian products. nobody is throwing rocks at russian embassies throughout the world. is it because its not on tv 24/7? is it because nobody cares about chechnya or can't find it on a map? is it because the french don't see gaining any mileage trying to oppose the russians. is it because everybody knows russia is unlikely to be moved one iota by outside suggestions. or is it simply because it is not america pulling the trigger. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1142 Registered: 6-2001 |
Whart: "enlightenment about the value of life means very little to those who oppose us..." Said by those who have invaded a country some 5000 miles away, who have dropped bombs on that country which have killed people, all based upon a belief that those other people might cause us harm years in the future? What are you smoking? If and when you can connect 9/11 to Iraq you may have a point, other than that, you are attempting to justify a killing of thousands based on a fairy tale, and you call yourself moral? Anger reduceds your IQ. Proven fact. IQ is needed here to rationally think this through. We haven't done that here, and the rest of the world has seen through the BS from Bush/Blair about this. Too bad we haven't been as critical here, but I suspect the anger we have towards the Muslims based upon 9/11 has interfered with our thought processes. Remember Lincoln: some of the people all the time, all of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time, when referring to falsehoods. I hope he was right. IMHO Art- | ||
| MFZ (Kiyoharu)
Junior Member Username: Kiyoharu Post Number: 149 Registered: 2-2003 |
"here is a question to pose to the next protester without a clue: what do you think should be done about the situation in chechnya? full of parrallels, except that the usa isn't involved. if they even know what you are talking about, i'd be interested in what the responses are." I don't consider myself as a protestor, as I never participated in any one of them, but I do support some of their causes occasionally. The problem with your story is that the parallel is not the US and Iraq, but China and Taiwan. This is because Chechnya was part of the old USSR, but declared independance when it broke up. This is much like China's claim that Taiwan is a state, part of the larger mainland, but the separatists consider themselves independant and even to an extent, the legitimate government of mainland China. However, unlike your parallel with US and Iraq, these two are at least related in history and the fact that one used to be part of the other, something that the US couldn't claim with Iraq, AFAIK Iraq was never part of a US colony. There does exist parallels in the way that Russia has used military force to wage a war against the separatists, often using their full military might. However, for the most part, the Russians are the big losers from the war, while I'd say the current Iraq-US+coalition war is tied for the moment. Actually, the US might have a small but important role in ensuring that Chechnya does achieve independance, as Chechnya has several important oil lines running through it and the fact that it's close to the Caspian sea. That's all I know for now. | ||
| MFZ (Kiyoharu)
Junior Member Username: Kiyoharu Post Number: 148 Registered: 2-2003 |
"preemptive strikes on countries, or groups which we deem threatening, must now be part of the plan. many won't like it, but those who are not intent on harming us, have nothing to worry about." What defines 'threatening' then? When did Iraq threatened America? Looking at the immediate situation, North Korea looks more 'threatening' (my assumptions) than Iraq. Also, what guarantee that the US won't attack other countries, since the definition of 'threatening' seems vague at this point? Poor Charles, someone please show him the error of his opinions. | ||
| Jesse Hoffman (Hoffmeister)
New member Username: Hoffmeister Post Number: 19 Registered: 12-2002 |
Jon P., Check out this...it supports your claim about losers: Researcher: War Protesters are Life's Losers LAST UPDATE: 3/27/2003 7:56:26 AM Posted By: Jim Forsyth A Texas A&M University sociologist says many of those people participating in anti war protesters are life's losers. "By participating in a protest against their society's norms, the individuals are attempting to destroy the standards by which their failure occurs," Howard B. Kaplan told 1200 WOAI. Kaplan heads the Texas A&M Laboratory for Studies of Social Deviance. Kaplan says there is a 'significant relationship' between issues of 'self rejection' and an increased likelihood of engagement in social protests. "Participating in protests can increase one's sense of power to produce results," Kaplan said. "Goals that were previously unattainable become more attainable by virtue of collective action, and participants are positively viewed by those around them who share their same standards." Kalpan has studied generations of Houston school children, starting in seventh grade and following them into their twenties. He says for people who's 'emotional ties with conventional membership groups are severely weakened,' participating in social protest activities have 'self enhancing effects.' "Where experiences of rejection and failure are overwhelming, and also associated with membership in a conventional group, participation in anti war protests allows the individual to reduce negative self feelings without causing a negative self judgment," Kaplan said. Interesting don't you think?  | ||
| Dr Tommy Cosgrove (Vwalfa4re)
Member Username: Vwalfa4re Post Number: 944 Registered: 5-2001 |
Hey Jon, you think some of those people would keep the money if they hit the big lotto or donate to greenpeace because they don't want to be like "us" if you know what I mean. Class envy is all it is. I have lived both lives. I just wish they would get a job and go to work like the rest of us. | ||
| Charles Barton (Airbarton)
Member Username: Airbarton Post Number: 360 Registered: 11-2002 |
Randall you need to get your head out of the sand! Don't you get it! We are at war with radical islam. They cannot be reasoned with and they will not stop until they destroy our way of life. We have no choice but to take the fight to them. | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 955 Registered: 1-2002 |
Jon Koford, GREAT posts! And great KKK analogy!!! | ||
| Craig (Beachbum)
Junior Member Username: Beachbum Post Number: 77 Registered: 9-2002 |
Randall is waiting to find a trail of bread crumbs back to where the terrorist are coming from | ||
| ross koller (Ross)
Member Username: Ross Post Number: 904 Registered: 3-2002 |
jon, i couldn't have said it better. randall, i think we need to define 'proof'. (this line of reasoning should appeal to you since i am pretty sure you voted for clinton). the posters on this forum are as opiniated (maybe more), as everybody else. and that is all these conversations are - opinions. linking to a website that supports your contention is simply a different delivery mechanism of the same opinion. it does not constitue proof in the way art would present a case to a jury. so to ask for web links, or to provide them yourself is helpful in supporting your viewpoint, but don't mistake it for evidence. whart, to address your original post. this is exactly the point i have been trying to make for the last 10 days. the front has now been moved to possibly include our country's territory, so now the rules of engagement that we helped create and that set the tone for the world since ww2, must now change. preemptive strikes on countries, or groups which we deem threatening, must now be part of the plan. many won't like it, but those who are not intent on harming us, have nothing to worry about. here is a question to pose to the next protester without a clue: what do you think should be done about the situation in chechnya? full of parrallels, except that the usa isn't involved. if they even know what you are talking about, i'd be interested in what the responses are. | ||
| Jon P. Kofod (95f355c)
Member Username: 95f355c Post Number: 543 Registered: 8-2001 |
Randall, Will agree that some do get help at the expense of other's such as your example of college entrance credentials. But for the most part you get more opportunity to succeed in our country then anywhere else. Yeah there are some folks who still want the inequities of the past redressed to those long since dead, to give the current descendants some advantage in the present but many of those folks fail even with the preferential treatment they are given. Looking at your profile I assume you are in the military. I am sure some in the military get quite a hefty paycheck and some don't. When I look at the risk involved in joining the military and what the younder people get paid to go out and fight in Iraq it seems kind of paltry. Regardless of their level of education. Again I want to point out that there are plenty of successful people who went to college and busted their ass and as you say earn less than you. I was trying to make sure I didn't equate success soley on money alone. I basically think success is a state of mind you reach when you are happy in life with what you have accomplished and reaching your goals. I basically think that very few of those protestors would fit that description as most seem like very angry people who hate the world. I doubt many of them would consider themselves successes judging by money or happiness. | ||
| Randall (Randall)
Junior Member Username: Randall Post Number: 195 Registered: 1-2003 |
Tommy- All I know is that particular site provides reference to CIA reports and FBI reports and lot of other documents. Not a single person has volunteered that sort of proof for a pro-war arguement. As for the "support it 'cause we're in it" idea. It took 3 years for popular opinion to say get out of Vietnam. JonP- You say "In this country everyone is given equal opportunity to succeed ", that's interesting, but not entirely true. Do colleges look at race or sex when considering entrance? What about government jobs? How about scholarships or officer programs in the military? It seems to me that not everyone is equal, that some people are labeled as needing a little help, so they're given priority. Another one "Those brave folks in the military don't earn a big paycheck ". What is a big paycheck? How much should a person earn that has a highschool education and no more? I know plenty of people that work hard in school, bust their ass through college, and now earn less than me. We get paid more than policemen, firemen and teachers. I won' give the money back that I earn, but I sure won't say we're underpaid. | ||
| jake diamond (Rampante)
Junior Member Username: Rampante Post Number: 92 Registered: 4-2002 |
RE: Jons last post What I fail to comprehend is why so many anti-capitalist protestors, are on a Ferrari site worshipping an admitted paragon of capitalistic success ??? Jake | ||
| Dr Tommy Cosgrove (Vwalfa4re)
Member Username: Vwalfa4re Post Number: 937 Registered: 5-2001 |
"What upsets me most is that the same freedom they so much seem to hate is the same freedom that enables them to protest so loudly. In most Communist and Socialist countries such freedom of expression would be heavily cracked down upon or in first world countries looked at as being un-Nationalistic or unpatriotic" I call that the protestor's paradox. I agree with you, Jon. Do these people even have jobs? They even had people laying in the streets of NY! Protesting something is one thing but interferring with people, with no involvement in that damn war, trying to go to work and earn a living is something else. I wonder what the percentage of those involved actually support themselves. As far as the Hollywood star type, what the hell makes them qualified to pass judgement? Because they are famous? Sure. Bush is famous too so there. Right back atcha Mr. sitcom whoever you are. Just think of all the trees that will be cut down while all of them are locked up in jail for a sit protest that someone could give a •••• about. | ||
| jake diamond (Rampante)
Junior Member Username: Rampante Post Number: 91 Registered: 4-2002 |
I went to the island image website; and once I clicked on any of their associated weblinks, it was like falling down the rabbit hole of "Anarchy in Wonderland" !! Just the same old peacenik dribble. | ||
| Jon P. Kofod (95f355c)
Member Username: 95f355c Post Number: 541 Registered: 8-2001 |
wm, First off let's get back to your question. I have tried to figure these folks out as well and have come to some conclusions or possibly stereotypes of them. I have nothing to back this up; it is merely a matter of opinion but here goes........ First off most of them hate those people who have any authority in life...i.e. the ability to make decisions for other people or make decisions that affect other people. Think about it most people who have true authority in life are SUCCESSFUL. So this brings up number #2 namely that they hate successful people, which brings up number #3, which is that most successful people earn a lot of money. Both success and money (in whatever order) give one the right to have some authority in life, either through financial independence to what you want or through influencing what goes on in this country. In order to become successful and affluent, most (not all) people have to work very hard and sacrifice many things. Those who succeed are people who have a strong work ethic, a desire to compete in life, a willingness to take risks and possibly fail, and a perseverance to reach their goal. In other words these folks (most of us) are strong people not weak people. Next up think about how our great country works. They don't call it the "land of opportunity" for nothing. In this country everyone is given equal opportunity to succeed and those who make the sacrifices and work hard succeed in life. Those who expect a handout or help from others rarely succeed. It's Socialism vs. Capitalism. Those who want to get paid what they are worth want capitalism, those who are not willing to work their asses off and work for what they desire want Socialism, it's the difference between those who want EQUAL OPPORTUNITY to succeed and those who want EQUAL OUTCOMES. My belief is that most of the protestors are basically losers in life who relate to the weak and unsuccessful and therefore gravitate toward supporting the oppressed and downtrodden. They hate people who have succeeded in life and have fought the hard battles. These protestors and anti-war demonstrators live in a country that rewards the hard working people much more than the people who try to coast through life. These people know the hard effort it takes to succeed in life and realize they don't have the guts, courage, and balls to do it. Thus they hate all people who are strong enough to fight for success. They don't want the people of Iraq to succeed anymore than Saddam wants them to. These protestors seek company (misery seeks company) and the more oppressed, poor, and weak people in the world the greater their number. Another angle gets back to influence and the ability of some people to influence others. As I stated most of the anti-war protestors are people who have little standing in society and even less influence. But by rallying together in some city and making their voice heard they suddenly have some standing at least from the standpoint that they get on the news and create a ruckus. Look at the people who join the KKK. Have you ever seen these freaks on TV? They are the biggest bunch of losers you will ever encounter in life. They know they are complete failures. But once a week Joe Schmoe, who has never succeeded in life, never had anyone look up to him in life, and never held a decent job with authority in life, can get up in front of 30 other maniacs and for one day he perceives himself as important as the Grand Imperial Wizard of such and such. Most of these protestors show up at every rally and protest the war, the government, the IMF, the World Bank (not that I like either of those two), the save the Seals march, save the environment, blah, blah, blah. Fact is they themselves are such losers in life they have little or no influence to change anything other than to protest those in power. What upsets me most is that the same freedom they so much seem to hate is the same freedom that enables them to protest so loudly. In most Communist and Socialist countries such freedom of expression would be heavily cracked down upon or in first world countries looked at as being un-Nationalistic or unpatriotic. One point I need to make is that I by no means consider success to be dependant on the amount of money one makes. Though there is a high correlation between the two there are many people who are successful in life who make little money. Success in life is being able to achieve what you want to through the opportunities afforded you. Those brave folks in the military don't earn a big paycheck but they are in my opinion successful because they take the greatest risk of all, namely their life in order to protect all of us and of course also the poor, weak, unsuccessful losers that attend those protests. Certainly not all protestors fit my description. Certainly the folks in Hollywood can't all be considered losers or non-influential. In their case I think some of them are embarrassed by what they do and how much they get paid. Most protestors basically hate all of us who have the gumption in life to go out and get what we want when they don't have the balls or courage to do so. I think to some extent this stereotype can be directed at some of the countries that have turned their back on us. While we all know why the Governments of Russia, China, France and Germany reject our effort (read money, oil contracts, and less influence) the people of those counties protest for a different reason. Namely that the US has more wealth, success, and influence then they do (just like the protestors in the US). Thus they hate us! Anyone else think the same! Regards, Jon P. Kofod 1995 F355 Challenge #23 | ||
| Dr Tommy Cosgrove (Vwalfa4re)
Member Username: Vwalfa4re Post Number: 935 Registered: 5-2001 |
Randall, I don't know anything about that site and I am not implying it is not factual. I just do not understand why you would feel it is to be believed any more or any less then a different site that has an opposing view. How can you determine which is the truth and which isn't? My point is we all have an opinion and both sides can support that opinion with internet news all day and all night. Unfortunately there is a lot of misinformation out there as well. I think we form an opinion first then search out a source that supports it instead of the other way around. How can you or I possibly know what is really true without actually sitting in on a meeting with the officials running this war in DC and actually hearing it from their mouths? What I DO KNOW is it's too late to ••••• and moan about why we are there doing what we are doing. We can only hope it works well for our soldiers and the civilian people of Iraq. I couldn't give a damn about Iraq's military or that monster Saddam. I know you don't support his effort to keep office. | ||
| Randall (Randall)
Junior Member Username: Randall Post Number: 192 Registered: 1-2003 |
Tommy- I've provided many links. Unlike most people who are just frustrated and slanderous. Here's a pretty decent site. Every article has it's references at the bottom. Lots of facts and the places you can find them. http://islandimage.net/oc/13myths/Factsheet.cfm?ID=5 | ||
| Randall (Randall)
Junior Member Username: Randall Post Number: 191 Registered: 1-2003 |
Once upon a time Clinton tried bombing the Al Quaida camps and I was all for it. He just wanted to lob Tomahawks until he felt the problem was extinguished, but he got shut down before he finished the job. It gets to be a real problem going with a pre-emptive strike idea. I feel that if we are to use a policy overseas, then we should use it at home. And there are plenty of militias and hate organizations in the US, and they don't always go out and committ crimes. The real question is how long do you wait? Is a group that trains guilty? What if they're gathering weapons that are legal to own? What it comes down to is having to prevent these people from entering the US. If they try, then they are guilty. If they succeed, they are guilty. But I'm not sure if I can agree with slaughtering people that have an idea and haven't really acted on it. | ||
| Dr Tommy Cosgrove (Vwalfa4re)
Member Username: Vwalfa4re Post Number: 932 Registered: 5-2001 |
Randell, where do you get YOUR information? With all do respect to you, how do you know so much about things that the rest of us don't? Who or what is your info source and why are they the gold standard? How do you know our government hasn't enough evidence? Is it because the haven't provided it to you? Unless you have been sitting in the war room with Bush and friends I wouldn't give Bret •••• about not knowing something. | ||
| wm hart (Whart)
Member Username: Whart Post Number: 837 Registered: 12-2001 |
Randall: i was trying to pose an example that would not get us entangled in the present debate over Iraq. Naked aggression: Let's say it involves the assembly of a number of people overseas whose avowed purpose is to enter this country and commit atrocities against civilians through some violent act that will cause a significant number (whatever that is to you) deaths of non-military persons. | ||
| Randall (Randall)
Junior Member Username: Randall Post Number: 190 Registered: 1-2003 |
Bret, I'm sure your vast knowledge came from Fox news. Which makes you no better than the protesters you're crying about. | ||
| BretM (Bretm)
Advanced Member Username: Bretm Post Number: 3323 Registered: 2-2001 |
I am a big fan of war technology and straightening out aholes like Hussein, but of course I'm not pro war for no reason. I don't think many people really are, but the people that are pro war in certain situations are just being realistic. All those protestor type people are just ignorant fools. If they're so anti war and passionate then why are they such a giant bunch of p_ssies, never ever putting themselves in danger. Getting arrested for protesting is not dangerous. If they believe so strongly about a cause they should go over there and put their own life in danger. They have these stupid aholes on my college campus now, they have like ten tents setup in one of the main campus fields where they're camping out with a big "End the War" flag hung up. Wow, so tough, they go to class everyday, eat until you're full at the cafeterias, shower everyday, no doubt listen to their stupid feminazi music, etc etc... They must really believe in their convictions to be so dedicated... | ||
| Randall (Randall)
Junior Member Username: Randall Post Number: 188 Registered: 1-2003 |
Could you site the example of the "face of naked aggression" against our country? If your concern is terrorists, do you think bombing people in Iraq is going to create more or less terrorist problems? If you think it will create more problems, then how do you solve he problem? The problem with our government is they don't want to provide evidence of guilt prior to rushing into a country after people. I don't believe I've met anyone that says no war in any circumstances. Ask any American if they think war with another country would be okay if that countries GOVERNMENT launched a strike against a state in the US, I'm sure they'll say yes. Also about Al Quaida. It's said that up to 70,000 people went through their training camps. Are we supposed to arrest all of them? What about militia camps in America, should we arrest anyone that goes to those? | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 949 Registered: 1-2002 |
How do they rationalize their hypocrisy, Bill? Good drugs.  | ||
| wm hart (Whart)
Member Username: Whart Post Number: 836 Registered: 12-2001 |
Here's something i don't get: alot of those protesting the Iraq war here in the US seem to be against any sort of armed conflict, no matter what the justification. I'll admit that the circumstances surrounding this current conflict leave lots of room for arguments on both sides. But, the problem i have with the no war in any circumstances crowd is that, after 9/11, it finally became apparent to me, and hopefully many Americans, that we are real targets for death and destruction because we are infidel in the eyes of religious zealots. I wish everybody could just get together and sing "Kumbaya" but it appears that enlightenment about the value of life means very little to those who oppose us. Apart from the explanation that these antiwar types are just anti-American, how can they rationalize passivity in the face of naked aggression?( Let's say we trace key Al Queda cells to Saudi Arabia and know that only by our direct military action in a sovereign nation can we effectively stop them. Do we just wait to get hit? Do we appeal to the sovereign nation, knowing full well that they won't take action? Do we go to the United Nations and seek a resolution? What?) | ||
| Anonymous |
poker casino poker 111 |