Subject:
|
Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 27 Sep 2001 07:34:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
874 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Eric Kingsley writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
>
> > > I see madness ahead for us all. No one defends true justice, just all of
> > > this wild west, "dead or alive", with us or against us type crap spewing
> > > from the hellish mouth of our president.
>
> > Well sir, I suggest you keep your big mouth shut and not say that in public.
> > If you do you are asking for big time trouble.
>
> Eric, let's not go there.
>
> I happen to think Richard goes a bit too far but if we cannot tolerate
> voices of dissent and discuss this rationally we are too far gone to
> triumph, and too far gone to *deserve* to triumph (1).
>
> All viewpoints should be heard. Some, of course, are so laughable that they
> need to be dismissed out of hand, but we need to hear them first. And
> perhaps in hearing them we will expose them for the folly that they are.
>
> But we MUST not knee jerk, as tempting as that is. This war will be a long
> one, a tough one, perhaps the toughest war we have ever tried to prosecute.
So what did you mean when you said this less than 4 days after the attack?
==+==
Secretary Powell declined to specify what would
be done but said a week deadline for all of bin Laden's organization to be
turned over to the west was not unreasonable. He's being too generous.
==+==
Scott A
>
> Unless some clear cut opportunity presents itself for an arrest, there is
> need to start any full scale actual battles until we know who we are
> battling. Just marching into Afghanistan right NOW, or worse, bombing
> innocent civilians without first giving them a chance to learn what this is
> about and decide what side they are on is a recipe for disaster.
>
> Sorry if I jumped on you to make a point that I think you mostly agree with
> but that statement of yours to Richard set me off. We CANNOT suppress
> dissent, even if it's totally wrong. And Richard is by no means totally
> wrong. Not hardly.
>
> 1 - make no mistake, this IS a war about morality. By our standards, which
> *are* correct, as has been demonstrated before, we are moral and our
> opponents are not. We are on the side of freedom, they are on the side of
> oppression. We are on the side of justice, they are on the side of violence.
>
> ++Lar
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
| (...) Sounds entirely consistent to me. The first message expressed a desire to have the existing powers-that-be in Afghanistan turn over bin Laden on their own, rather than simply rolling out NATO within the week (and without due consideration) to (...) (23 years ago, 27-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
| (...) Eric, let's not go there. I happen to think Richard goes a bit too far but if we cannot tolerate voices of dissent and discuss this rationally we are too far gone to triumph, and too far gone to *deserve* to triumph (1). All viewpoints should (...) (23 years ago, 22-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
55 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
