Send 40 million Bush inauguration money to tsunami victims

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

So maybe instead of walking around grabbing our big dicks and bragging about what bad mother f*#kers we are we would be better off using our heads and intelligence ( you may want to look that one up) and preventing attacks by paying attention to intel and better yet behave differently and less arrogantly. In a dangerous world, good manners are your best defense IMO.

How very foolish. I would love to see you attempt to defend yourself as an inmate in a Nazi concentration camp by impressing them with your good manners. The sad fact is that there will always be evil people who only respect force. There are now weapons of immense danger in existence and allowing them to propagate to anyone who wants them will result in death on a scale far, far greater than has occurred in Iraq.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

So Brandon I suppose what you're saying is that the people who are already loaded with WMD's are sort of grandfathered in?

It's like the mafia, they've closed the books to new members?

And in the name of keeping the peace we may have to kill you?

I get it now.

You don't appear to get much of anything. I am saying that it is not practically possible to attack someone who has the power to kill millions in the first moments of the conflict. This is self-evident.

We are able to kill millions in the first moments of a conflict and someone attacked us..... now, who is it who seems not to get things?

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

So Brandon I suppose what you're saying is that the people who are already loaded with WMD's are sort of grandfathered in?

It's like the mafia, they've closed the books to new members?

And in the name of keeping the peace we may have to kill you?

I get it now.

You don't appear to get much of anything. I am saying that it is not practically possible to attack someone who has the power to kill millions in the first moments of the conflict. This is self-evident.

We are able to kill millions in the first moments of a conflict and someone attacked us..... now, who is it who seems not to get things?

On 9/11, who were we supposed to have directed our nukes at? We were attacked in a covert action with no immediately provable perpetrator. The immediate perpetrators died in the attack. As soon as we were sure who was responsible, we did attempt to obliterate them. We did not attempt to obliterate them with nukes because (a) there was not a large scale invasion of the US underway, (b) we are a powerful nation and can be effective with our conventional army, and (c) we are at least responsible enough to try to stay away from WMD when possible.

In the situations I am describing on the other hand, (a) we would be making an invasion with the goal of conquering a country entirely, (b) the fact that we were the perpetrators would be completely obvious so that the country being invaded would know who to retaliate against, and (c) in many cases we would be invading weak countries that could not defend themselves with conventional forces.

and then the backpedal....... I hope you get to stand waist high in blood at least once before you die Brandon...and I hope that I avoid it...then apparently we will both be happy....let's just leave it at that...I don't think we're going to find any common ground here...

How very foolish. I would love to see you attempt to defend yourself as an inmate in a Nazi concentration camp by impressing them with your good manners.

The sad fact is that there will always be evil people who only respect force.

Brandon9000 wrote:

How very foolish. I would love to see you attempt to defend yourself as an inmate in a Nazi concentration camp by impressing them with your good manners.

This is hardly an analogous scenario.
Not even close!!

Brandon9000 wrote:

The sad fact is that there will always be evil people who only respect force.

Would you consider yourself one?
How about Bush?
Evil or not, only respecting force as a term of mediation lumps all of that kind into one useless pile.

"I didn't say I'd like to see you in a concentration camp in general"

"I just said I'd like to see you in a concentration camp trying to defend yourself"

I did not say that I would like to see you in a concentration camp in general. I said that I would like to see you apply your "best defense" of being polite there.

It's a pity that you have to misquote me to argue your point. First of all, I never said that we should take out those nations that we think are attempting to develop WMD. It is my position that in the future, as many groups, some nations and some not, attempt to obtain WMD, it would be insanity to sit back and let anyone get them who wants to. I am saying that there will be cases where some group's possession of WMD would appear to possess a clear and present danger of their use. Groups of this type must be dissuaded even by force

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

"I didn't say I'd like to see you in a concentration camp in general"

"I just said I'd like to see you in a concentration camp trying to defend yourself"

That is certainly not a correct quotation, liar. This is what I said verbatim:

Quote:

I did not say that I would like to see you in a concentration camp in general. I said that I would like to see you apply your "best defense" of being polite there.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

"I didn't say I'd like to see you in a concentration camp in general"

"I just said I'd like to see you in a concentration camp trying to defend yourself"

That is certainly not a correct quotation, liar. This is what I said verbatim:

Quote:

I did not say that I would like to see you in a concentration camp in general. I said that I would like to see you apply your "best defense" of being polite there.

I would love to see you attempt to defend yourself as an inmate in a Nazi concentration camp

and btw you forgot to say pants on fire...see ya on the playground....

My point was simply that his statement that politeness is the best defense is often wrong.

just for educational purposes...to help me grow in my understanding...you would want to see me in a concentration camp... just for a little bit.....what a guy Brandon...full of tough love.....and backpedaling....

The fact remains with the power that all nations possess or soon will possess if we do not learn to live together all those science fiction movies about an atomic war. May turn out not to be science fiction after all. The world is too small and the weapons to powerful to consider anything less.

Brandon9000 wrote:

My point was simply that his statement that politeness is the best defense is often wrong.

And our collective point is perhaps that you're very wrong.

I recently read a study on how to combat the constantly nagging, forever critical in-laws. The conclusion was that excessive politeness eventually corrected the in laws critical behaviors.
Now, you'll surely rebut by stating how different this is from international politics, but familial battles, workplace dispites are mere microcosms of what we see in the world.
No dispute has as it's only resolve,a gun to the head or a fist to the face. But I'm just one of those liberal pacifist educators who trys to teach tomorrow's youth that despite actions of professional athletes, actions of international leaders, there is a peaceful resolve to every situation.

The problem is that peaceful negotiations often require cooperation, sacrifice and compromise. Something the US, especially under Bush, is completely unwilling to endeavor.