Subject:
|
Re: Just Teasing, I Have No Intention of Debating Any of This...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 22 Mar 2003 01:11:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
639 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
>
> > You contradict yourself. How would letting Israel fall *decrease* their misery?
>
> Making Israel play by "the rules" would, I think, be the first step in reaching
> a peace in the region. Most of the Arab world objects to the way that Israel
> is treated to a double standard. I know you just don't think that's a
> reasonable analysis, but they (and I) do. We should pull our money out of
> their sorry little butt as long as they're going to fight tooth and nail
> against peace. If they want our $3B each year, we really ought to make them
> embrace their humanity for it. And if they don't want it that badly, then so
> be it.
>
> Setting them up to fail/fall would not decrease their misery. But I think it
> might decrease the net misery, and I also think they're not dumb enough to
> fall. If we made them get in line, they'd do it. In a few generations the
> monsters like Sharon would be gone and there would be peace. There's no
> Earthly reason that there can't be peace over there.
What you are failing to place into the Israeli question is Palestinian
terrorism. Most if not all of Israeli aggression is in retaliation for
terrorism. What is going to bring peace in that region is for the Palestinians
to eschew terror and those reigning terror in their name. There is a damned
good reason why there can't be peace in that region-- there exist people who
have dedicated their lives to the destruction of the state of Israel. Until
those people are eliminated, nothing will change. And in a disappointing bit
of news, I see that the Palestinians have demonstrated and voiced their support
for Saddam Hussein. These people are just clueless. It is sad really.
> > I remember feeling very unsure of the future just after 9-11. Not for my own
> > safety necessarily, but for the future of our way of life. At no time in
> > history could so few inflict so much potential damage. It is a problem that
> > will require new methods of combat.
>
> It took me weeks and months to realize that they won. That they have
> successfully changed our way of life.
Well, Chris, I'm not sure that is exactly the kind of victory that they were
looking for;-)
> Ashcroft is their tool and no one seems
> to understand that. Every time the gubmint is given broader powers to moniter
> and control our lives, we become more like the enemy. Yet we (you) feel like
> this is a good thing. It baffles me/
Yes, these are trying times. Civil liberties have always been curtailed in
times of war. This is a unique war, and we are still finding a way to address
it. Sure, some misteaks will be made and have been made, but nothing is
permanent. The number 1 task of our government is the safety of the United
States. This isn't exactly an easy task, especially in the most open and
freest country in the world.
Yes, we need to be vigilant about protecting freedom. But when protecting
individual freedoms and protecting national security conflict, there are going
to be issues.
> > Seriously, does anyone doubt for a second that, had OBL access to a nuke, he
> > would denotate it in Washington D.C.? I don't. And that is not a happy
> > thought.
>
> I don't doubt it for a second.
And that doesn't scare you? And the fact that a supporter of terrorism had
chemical and biological weapons and was pursuing nukes doesn't scare you? How
closely are you willing to flirt with disaster? What would you give to be able
to take back a terrorist nuclear attack?
We have been attacked in a horrendous way, and, by the grace of God, it wasn't
worse. We mustn't let that happen again.
> OBL is a bad bad man who is thoroughly
> disenfranchised. Hussein is also a bad (but sane) man. I don't object to
> working toward regime change. I object to the smoke and mirrors used in an
> attempt to justify it. I object to the claim that he is linked to OBL. And I
> will object most of all to the theft of the Iraqi oil if Richard is right
> while you and Larry eat crow.
Yes, I can't wait until the time when we turn Iraq over to the Iraqis and RM
and the others will eat crow!
>
> Like I said. We have the option to make this a good thing. I just fear that
> we shant.
And I am confident we will. What is interesting to me is that one's perception
on this issue tends to break along party lines. I really wonder why that is,
and I fear that it is merely because the Left is so bigotedly partisan and just
bitter that Bush won the election. I can't believe the hatred the Left has for
Bush. I can't explain it any other way.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
164 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
