Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
When I have gone to the Comedy Store, I laugh at the jokes and don't take them serious. When I go to a "political" meeting, I take the speakers serious and assume they would act on what they say.
|
Stop ignoring the means to attack. You're the same kind of person who says "they've build a nuclear weapon, all they're missing is the uranium and a delivery system". The Taliban completely and totally lacked the ability to do any damage whatsoever to the US. They weren't even a threat to our allies. They were only a threat to Afghanistan. That's sad, I feel for those Afghans that were under Taliban rule, but even if they were hell-bent on destroying America (and they weren't, btw), they lacked the means.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
If you had a baby crocodile living under your house, no ability and no expressed intent to do you harm, would you act now or wait?
|
Can you demonstrate that they were "a baby crocodile"? I don't know why you expect that everyone automatically buys this idea that because someone threatens us we're actually in danger.
BTW, do you know how many baby crocodiles we don't act on? Like the one in Mexico? If you were serious about this, you'd want us to go after crocodiles based on how immediate the threat is, right? The most immediate threat to the US is Mexican instability, followed by domestic terror, followed by North Korea selling nuclear weapons. Even back in 2001 after 9/11.
Hey, wait a second, you forgot to respond to my main point: Demonstrate to me why you considered the Taliban to be a CREDIBLE threat. Do it.