Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
So cite your sources. And that still doesn't change the fact that you're using a war begun 20 years befor emy example and ended a decade before my example to refute my example. It doesn't change the fact that you're not making any sense here.
|
So the "Cold War" ended before the 1980's?
Quote:
|
It's difficult to prove your point because it's nearly incomprehensible. You seem to want to kill everyone who doesn't like the USA. That's either a nonsensical wish, or a psychopathic one.
|
Not everybody who doesn't LIKE the USA. Just the ones calling for it's death. It's neither nonsensical nor psychopathic, it's called "National Survival."
Quote:
|
Where did you get that? You need to read my posts more thoroughly. If they attacked us, kill 'em. But you can't go running around killing people just because they wear turbans and MIGHT someday POSSIBLY be a threat to us.
|
So you're saying that they actually have to have the gun in their hand and pointed at us for them to be justifiably killed? I respectfully disagree.
Quote:
Hey! By jove I think he's got it! Damn right Bush doesn't want OBL dead. If he did, OBL would be dead by now. Have you forgotten his press conference in March of '03? I'll quote it for you to refresh your memory:
I don't read that and think "Yep, Bushie's out to kill that dude" do you?
|
Sometimes, it's hard to find one guy who has the entire planet to hide on, ESPECIALLY when your media releases information on how we track him. You're kidding yourself if you think Bush doesn't want OBL dead.
Quote:
|
And I'm trying to do the same with you, and all I see is wild militarism and a desire to kill anyone who doesn't like your country.
|
Once again, not who doesn't "like" our country, just those who are actively advocating it's destruction.
Quote:
|
This from the party that ran Bush? Sure, he won, but the man can't lead a kid to the crapper. Everything he's EVER touched has been destroyed. He destroyed every business he tried to run, he destroyed the Texas economy when he became governor, he destroyed the US economy, its reputation around the world, and any hope that we'll be secure in the foreseeable future.
|
Ah. I see. Strange then that Texas went for Bush both times he ran for President, and Bush got re-elected in '04... I mean, if he had destroyed everything you say he's destroyed, why do we keep voting him back into office?
Quote:
|
No, we cannot, because when we kill people for speaking their mind, we make more people angry with us, and the more we get angry with us the less secure we are.
|
Either that, or they learn that running around chanting "Death To America!" is a bad idea.
Quote:
|
How is Saddam paying their families when he's sitting in jail stripped of all his power and money? I won't even bother asking you to cite your sources because your assumptions don't even make sense.
|
he's not anymore, because he's sitting in jail, and not in one of his palaces. If he were still in power, he'd still be paying them. now he can't. That's a GOOD thing, and came DIRECTLY from invading Iraq.
Quote:
|
You also seem to have trouble understanding how to interpret the number of suicide bombings per day. You apparently believe that if they have all the suicide bombers they want, they'll send 'em all out on the same day at the same time to blow themselves up simultaneously. That's simply not how it works. Unless you can give me a finite count of suicide bombers, or give me a definite date on which they'll run out of them, then you can't possibly say with any credibility that there aren't many of them.
|
you make it sound like they have this huge stockpile of suicide bombers that they are holding back. this is not true. In fact, "debriefings" of failed suicide bombers indicate that there is actually a very short timespan between when a potential suicide bomber says "I'll do this" and when they are deployed. this is true for a variety of reasons: First, because the longer they are not used, the better the chance that they will be compromised and killed beforehand, and secondly, because if you give them too much time to think, they'll do exactly that, and you run the risk of them backing out.
Quote:
|
A suicide bomber straps bombs to himself and blows himself up. They did not do that. This is silly, it's semantics, and you are incorrect about it anyway, so why continue?
|
So somebody who drives a truck bomb into a target and blows it up with themselves inside it is not a suicide bomber? they didn't strap explosives on themselves, so by your "definition", they must not be.
Quote:
|
The only thing that's worse than your logic is your logic. If they're blowing themselves up in Iraq, they have no intentions of coming over here and blowing themselves up. This is a one shot thing. If they wanted to blow themselves up here, they would. You're acting like it's a good thing that people are blowing themselves up over there. You're acting like this makes us more secure, and that simply isn't the case.
|
how do you figure? they've proven that they are willing to travel across international boundaries to blow themselves up, yes? Some of the suicide bombers that have died in Iraq came from England. How much harder would it have been for them to fly west instead of east? They know that the war is currently in Iraq, so that is where they are going for their "martyrdom" operations. If they were not going to Iraq, where would they be going? did you ever study the WWI battle of Verdun?
Quote:
|
And that is a mistake. In the first place, our primary target should be those who have already hurt us. In the second place, finding all the terrorists will be impossible even if it were justified.
|
So you are saying that we should not go after all terrorists. Is this correct?
Quote:
|
More rambo crap. Life is not a movie, it's not that simple. Bush would have you believe the world is black and white but it is not, and even if it were, it's a lot easier to SAY "we're gonna kill all of them" than it is to actually do it.
|
Actually, some things ARE "black and white". Terrorists are BAD. there are no "grey" terrorists.
Quote:
|
You can say that about north korea, pakistan, iran, syria, and saudi arabia, among others. Your logic breaks down because we haven't invaded those guys yet. If that were really teh reason we went after iraq, we'd have gone after them as well.
|
We can only be so many places at any one time. Both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia's governments ARE helping us. Their official state policy is to combat terrorism. Now Iran and Syria both have governmental policies that support terrorists. In fact, Iran apparently just elected an anti-american terrorist as their President, according to recent news stories which state that he was one of the kidnappers from the US Embassy in Tehran.
Quote:
|
And let's not forget that Saudi Arabia finances the HELL out of terrorists, a lot more than Iraq ever did, yet we insist on calling them our "friends" How do you justify that?
|
Are they trying to help us? Are they killing the terrorists that they catch?
Quote:
|
only if you could prove it's a clear threat. A bunch of people thousands of miles away chanting death to america, but who have no ICBMs, no tanks, and no bombers with which to accomplish this wish, does not necessarilly pose a threat to us.
|
the people chanting "Death To America" are certainly a very rich recruiting source for terrorists, yes? I mean, if they are running around chanting "Death To America!", it's pretty clear that they ALREADY don't like America, yes? If a "priest" goes around issuing Fatwas saying it's OK for people to kill Americans, that "priest" has indeed shown himself to be dangerous and worthy of being killed, because he's telling people it's OK to kill Americans.
Around here, the scenario I described would be considered to be entirely within the law. The person saying "your money or your life" can INDISPUTABLY be shot, even though you as the victim haven't yet seen a weapon. The words alone are enough to constitute a threat that entitles the attacked person to kill them in self defense. As a result of this, people tend to be careful about saying things like that. Go figure.
seriously, I recall a case a while back that was interesting. It seems that a Navy guy's house kept getting broken into by a literal crackhead. While he was out on deployment, the crackhead broke in so many times that his wife and kids had to leave the house for their own safety. The crackhead was not attacking people, he was just stealing stuff. So the Navy guy gets back from deployment, gets a gun, and goes into the house to wait for the crackhead. the crackhead breaks in again, and the Navy guy shoots him dead. The CA, being a politician, decides "OK, let's prosecute this guy, because the Navy guy basically ambushed the crackhead, and I don't think that's right." The result? A jury of his peers found the Navy guy not guilty on all counts, and sent him back to his family. BTW, I don't think the CA's political career is doing too well nowadays...