Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
So then what was your original point in using a McCarthyian viewpoint of the vietnam war to dispute a point about the 1980's?
|
McCarthyian? Sorry, I didn't "cut my teeth" on McCarthy. There has been a fair amount of stuff released from KGB files after the fall of the Soviet Union documenting the ties between the KGB and the Vietnam anti-war movement.
Quote:
|
Uh, yeah, pretty much. It's our job to defend ourselves, not to arrest anyone doing any wrong anywhere in the world. If they want to blow shit up in CountryX, then it's CountryX's job to take care of them. It's our job to take care of them when they hurt stuff in OUR country.
|
Thank you for proving my point. Somehow, I don't see the threat of arrest as being something that would bother most suicide bombers. Do you?
Quote:
|
Your grasp on current events is not very good then. All of them did not die. Moussaui is still alive and in jail. Many of the planners and instigators, including bin Laden, are still alive and running free. Only the operatives died on the planes. Those guys are the foot soldiers. Theyr'e expendable, and there's lots more where they came from. If you want to stop this group you have to cut its head off, and that means getting bin Laden. How can you possibly justify this "war on terror" when the president sees no need to capture the terrorist that started all this?
|
Moussaui did not participate in the September 11 attacks, did he? Has OBL been convicted in a court of law of anything? Under the law enforcement model, which is what you're actually pushing, OBl is innocent, because he hasn't been proven guilty. You say "the President sees no need to capture the terrorist that started all this". Are you seriously trying to say that Bush does not want to see OBL dead? Seriously, I'm trying to understand where you are coming from, and all I see is a widely disbursed scattergun pattern.
Quote:
|
You come up with 4 people and use that as a basis to reject a party of millions? Gee, let's see. McCarthy, Nixon, Ollie North, and Limbaugh. There's 4 nutjob republicans for ya. I guess we can reject that party too. What exactly is your point here?
|
My point is first of all that you are not the arbiter of what a "true" democrat is. And ANY party that would run John Kerry for their Presidential nominee is not just worthy of rejection, it's BEGGING for people to heap scorn upon it.
Quote:
|
that's delusional, plain and simple. You're deluding yourself into thinking that we can protect ourselves by running around the world killing people while leaving our boarders wide open, our ports unprotected, and our airport security still not catching knives going through the scanners. And added to that we've got the entire world angry with us. How exactly is what we are doing protecting the American people?
|
We can't protect ourselves by running around killing people around the world randomly. We CAN protect ourselves by running around the world killing people who are advocating our destruction. And it's not like they are all hiding, is it?
Quote:
|
Um, yeah, actually, they pretty much do. That's why so many suicide bombers are still blowing things up nearly every day.
|
Really? I suspect that if you were to actually count the numbers of suicide bombers each day, you could run an accurate average daily count without taking off your shoes. Out of a religion that has over a billion members, that's not a lot of people willing to blow themselves up, is it? ESPECIALLY when many of them blow themselves up in exchange for money for their family from people like Saddam...
Quote:
|
Wrong again. They were not suicide bombers. They were kamikaze terrorists. They didn't blow themselves up, and they didn't have bombs.
|
So an airplane loaded with aviation fuel isn't a bomb if it's driven into a building? I suggest you read BATFE's definition of what constitutes a "destructive device" again. I suppose that, since they did not blow themselves up, they were actually shot by police?
Quote:
|
If you have a nest of 2,000 cobras, and you kill 80 of them, the remaining 1,920 will still bite and kill you.
|
Which would you prefer? Them killing themselves in Iraq, or them killing themselves in Cleveland? EVERY single suicide bomber you hear of killing themselves in Iraq is one person who is willing to commit a suicide bombing that is now unable to do so in the US.
Quote:
|
OK. You advocating invading pakistan and afghanistan again? Because that's where bin Laden is. And since Iraq wasn't harboring any of the 19 terrorists, or their bosses, why are you still such a supporter of the invasion?
|
Because it's not a war on one group of terrorists, it's a war on ALL terrorists. If a terrorist group even CLAIMS that they want to kill Americans, they need to be killed. ALL of them. Saddam was financing suicide bombers. Saddam had sheltered other terrorists that had killed Americans. Saddam had terrorist training camps in Iraq. And no, not all of them were in the North, there were many in the South, one of which was overrun by a Marine Battalion just south of Baghdad, with over FIVE HUNDRED foreign fighters killed.
Quote:
|
You are frightening. You want to kill people for voicing an opinion? Freedom of speech is one of the pillars of our democracy, and you want to kill people for exercising it? I don't give a crap if they chant death to america as long as they don't act on it. You, apparently, want to go on a killing spree any time anyone looks at you wrong. That kind of militaristic rambo crap is NOT the way to safeguard our country.
|
If the opinion is one that justifies their death, I have no problem with it. Take this scenario for example. Suppose you are in a bad neighborhood late at night. Suppose a young man, dressed disreputably, comes up to you with his hands in his pockets and says "Stand and deliver, your money or your life." Now it's very possible that he's really just an old Adam Ant fan expressing his right to free speech (and bad makeup), but if you put a bullet through his skull, it's still legally justified. Why? Because his statement posed a clear threat.