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 03:46:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
344 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli wrote:
| |
| |
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.
|
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?
| |
| |
| |
| |
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
|
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.
|
No, Mike, I mean as in protecting oil fields so that they may be marketed to us
and the world freely. Or deposing tyrannts who fund/and or harbor terrorists to
the US.
| |
| |
| |
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 possibly Israel as well. Are you really so willing to accept a middle
eastern limited (hopefully) nuclear war as a potential scenario?
| |
| |
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.
|
Say again? I need a cite for that assertion. Actually, it is Israel herself
who has prolonged the conflict due to her restraint of not wiping out the
Palestinians long ago...
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
What does that mean?
| |
| |
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?
|
Who is swallowing what propaganda?!! You are talking crazy! But don’t
believe me; consult an expert, someone who has dealt with more terrorism than
anyone. Ask virtually any Israeli.
| |
| |
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.
|
Let’s suppose that the attack on 9-11 was actually a nuclear bomb denotation.
How would we have reacted differently than we did? Your response doesn’t make
any sense.
| |
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.
|
Dude, what more can we do for those countries??? You can only lead a horse to
water!
| |
| |
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.
|
The problem is that the enemy isn’t even a country. How does one formulate a
foreign policy based on groups or individuals? One doesn’t, by definition. But
you serve notice to countries who *do* harbor and/or sponsor terrorists. We
never would have attacked Iraq had SH simply left the country. All we wanted
was him-- his head on a platter. He refused and we did what we had to do to
depose him and his corrupt government, and nothing more. Once a stable
democracy is up and running in Iraq, we will leave.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
