Debate : 21552


Off-Topic / Debate / 21552	21551 \| 21553

Subject:	Re: How many things need to stack up before we throw this jerk out?
Newsgroups:	lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date:	Sun, 13 Jul 2003 03:02:10 GMT
Viewed:	295 times

It is time that all of the world’s tinpot leaders get the message that supporting terrorism and terrorists will lead to their ruin.

So if we declare nuetrality and state that anyone whom attacks the U.S. will be wiped off the planet that would accomplish that goal.

I’d have said “off foreign leaders” but we have failed at both attempts so far by all available evidence. And at least one of these dudes is a striking looking individual carrying a dialysis machine!

Yeah, these measures are so effective. ::cough:: quagmire! ::cough::

If you or anyone else on the left has any better ideas about how to address this threat, I’d love to hear it.

I have done so before, but am reluctant to do so again for the lamest participant on this board who has rarely if ever provided even the tiniest shred of evidence to even partially justify his paranoid and xenophobic views.

You rant from your ivory tower, but in fact you have no plausible solutions

to offer.

Asked and answered “no-evidence-man.”

Lessening american interference in many world affairs would be a start, in my humble opinion. I submit that running around policing everyone else in the world while we simultaneously commit atrocity after atrocity isn’t gaining us any credibility on the world scene.

That may have been good advice 200 years ago, but the world is a smaller place today.

See above.

There is no more possibility of isolationism anymore. We have a global economy; the ruin of one affects the others. Further, it is never our intent to run around “policing everyone”-- just running around protecting our interests from those who would choose to destroy our way of life.

Hmm. Protecting our way of life huh? You mean like ignoring the bill of rights.

That’s a good answer for anyone that is not obsessed with Israel. Me, I don’t give a damn if the Palestinians and the Israelis engage in a mutual genocide pact. I mean, it would be sad -- but at the end of the day I’d rather make fewer enemies by not taking sides.

Good example. Do you doubt for 1 second that if we withdrew support of Israel and the Arabs decided to launch an all-out assault her, she wouldn’t nuke the living crap out of them?

Which would end the conflict.

And your isolationist policy would bring such a conflict about, and a nuclear one at that! Our support of Israel actually is a stabilizing effect over there.

No it is simply prolonging a war. The U.S. actually gives more to the Palestinians than it does to the Isralies.

I’d rather a thousand instances of my uncertainty, nay-saying, doubt, and inaction than the actual results of your psycho-apocalyptic-Xtian-manifest-destiny nonsense.

You attitude is the wet dream of a terrorists.

No it is the fear mongers version of what the “wet dream of terrorits” is.

Inaction enboldens terrorism; uncertainty strengthens terrorist resolve; doubt leads to capitulation. Your path would lead us to ruin.

Do you honestly swallow all that propaganda? You do realize that it is far more likely that the Government let the 9/11 attacks succed so they have a scapegoat for stealing our rights via the patriot act right?

You would rather absorb a nuclear attack rather than pre-emptively trying to disarm those who would attack us in such a manner? Fine.

That wouldn’t happen (or at worst only happen once) you know. Because then we would flatten half the world (without using nukes) in retaliation. That would make the whole problem go away. Of course people would be whining about the innoccent lives, even though they didn’t care how badly they were suffering before hand.

I guess we just agree to disagree on that issue. But I’ll say this-- I’d bet my LEGO collection that your POV isn’t shared by the overwhelming majority of Americans-- right or left.

We are the most powerful nation on the earth. What is so wrong with wielding that power to spread the concepts of freedom and liberty?

Nothing. The problem is we are not doing that. I mean you see how free Afganistan and Iraq are right now don’t you. Sure they are better off now but they are still not free.

We didn’t invent them; they are inalienable rights for everyone. It would be evil to allow others to suffer under the tyranny of oppression while burying our collective head in the sands of indifference.

The problem is we need a consistent foreign policy regardless of what that policy is.

-Mike Petrucelli

Message has 2 Replies:

		Re: How many things need to stack up before we throw this jerk out?
(...) So then how does that differ from how we reacted after 9-11? There wasn't any country responsible for that attack. Whom or what would you wipe off the planet? (...) No, Mike, I mean as in protecting oil fields so that they may be marketed to (...) (21 years ago, 13-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

		Re: How many things need to stack up before we throw this jerk out?
Snipped a lot of stuff to focus on a couple of bits... (...) I think that may be going a bit far. The government did a poor job of acting on evidence it had before it, but that's a lot different than actually "letting" the attacks succeed. There's (...) (21 years ago, 13-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Message is in Reply To:

		Re: How many things need to stack up before we throw this jerk out?
(...) It is time that all of the world's tinpot leaders get the message that supporting terrorism and terrorists will lead to their ruin. (...) That may have been good advice 200 years ago, but the world is a smaller place today. There is no more (...) (21 years ago, 12-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

81 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

Custom Search