1
   

Understanding America and the Bush administration

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Feb, 2005 01:33 pm
Quote:
The best defense IS a good offense.


A typical answer from someone who doesn't understand terrorism's causes and motivations in the slightest. War isn't football.

Shouldn't you stick to maintaining that 4.0 and leave the discussion to others? I know it takes a lot of studying to maintain a 4.0....

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Feb, 2005 01:36 pm
I'm so incredibly smart that I am studying in one window, working on a huge project---dazzlingly well, I might add--and dropping a few turds on you at the same time...

WATCH OUT!! HERE COMES ANOTHER ONE!!!

Plus. I know a hell of a lot more than YOU do about what causes terrorism. Care to rassle?


edit

Cyclo-- I don't want to muss blatham's pretty thread. Let's take it outside.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Feb, 2005 01:38 pm
If they keep their expanded settlements, they'll continue to have problems with staying alive.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Feb, 2005 01:39 pm
Quote:
Plus. I know a hell of a lot more than YOU do about what causes terrorism. Care to rassle?


Sure, but I'd hate to beat up on an unarmed opponent; as I contend you don't understand the first THING about terrorism, or you never would have made the 'offense-defense' comment.

Take the fore - what causes terrorism? WHat are the primary causes of terrorism in the Middle East? What factors have lead to the rise in anti-American terrorism over the last twenty years? What are effective strategies for combating terrorists, given their distributed nature?

If you'd like to 'rassle,' start a new thread, ok? We're way off-topic here.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Feb, 2005 01:40 pm
I understand that some people think that, ci. But, do you remember how they came about those settlements? Do you remember how the 67 War came about? I don't understand how anyone could expect any group to behave differently that the Jews did in 67. Or now, really.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Feb, 2005 01:44 pm
Doesn't change the problem one iota by looking at what happened to Jews in 67. It's the here and now that most Arabs/Muslims see the problems. They probably don't give a shet about 67. Their loss of land, jobs, schools, and hospitals probably has a great impact on them in the here and now.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Feb, 2005 01:48 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
Apparently the author is too dense to see that most of what we Americans do is simply for purposes of self-preservation.


Bull. What we are doing has nothing to do with self-preservation, and you know it (and no, I don't want to hear your repeated 'they might have had something and we can't take that chance' argument again)

OFFENSE IS NOT DEFENSE!!!

Cycloptichorn

When a person like Saddam Hussein has had WMD and there us a significant possibility that he is simply hiding them until the heat is off, or, God forbid, still developing them while we inspect, there is a huge potential danger to the world. Weapons of this variety kill on the scale seen in Hiroshima or Nagasaki, or possibly even worse. The logic, is, of course, to disarm him before he can kill a huge number of people which may include entire American cities. When we are faced with a danger this grave, taking action (offense) to insure our future non-death, is, of course, a form of defense. Your phrase "offense is not defense" sounds nice, but is clearly wrong.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Feb, 2005 01:50 pm
Lash wrote:
The best defense IS a good offense.

Don't you think chauvinistic nationalism on Israel's part is really an intense effort to stay alive?

I think they left out the part about the Palestinians with nail bombs strapped to their bodies detonating themselves in marketplaces.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Feb, 2005 01:52 pm
Brandon, Your fear is showing, but that's about all.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Feb, 2005 01:56 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Brandon, Your fear is showing, but that's about all.

Either dispute my logic, or don't waste my time. It is sensible to be afraid of real danger, and foolish not to be.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Feb, 2005 02:02 pm
Yes, "real danger." Please provide facts and support for those "real dangers." Most are imagined by people like you. I fear crossing the street at home more than I ever did about Saddam's WMDs.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Feb, 2005 02:10 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Yes, "real danger." Please provide facts and support for those "real dangers." Most are imagined by people like you.

1. Saddam Hussein had developed WMD and had active programs to perfect more before we interrupted them.
2. He had attempted to annex neighbors.
3. He had killed enough people on purpose to give one the idea that he did not hold the lives of others in much esteem.
4. He had lied about his WMD, and inspectors had been prevented from entering certain sites before Iraq could "sanitize" them.
5. The totality of the history left great doubt that he had destroyed his WMD and programs, yet, somehow lacked convincing evidence of it.
6. Even a single WMD of many types can cause death on a massive scale.

That is real danger.


cicerone imposter wrote:
I fear crossing the street at home more than I ever did about Saddam's WMDs.

Your lack of comprehension is off topic.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Feb, 2005 02:26 pm
1. Saddam Hussein had developed WMD and had active programs to perfect more before we interrupted them.
No WMDs have been found.

2. He had attempted to annex neighbors.
That was ten years earlier. He was removed.

3. He had killed enough people on purpose to give one the idea that he did not hold the lives of others in much esteem.
You are again talking about past history. Our trade ban killed more Iraqi people since then.


4. He had lied about his WMD, and inspectors had been prevented from entering certain sites before Iraq could "sanitize" them.
That's the reason why the UN weapon's inspectors were trying to locate them.

5. The totality of the history left great doubt that he had destroyed his WMD and programs, yet, somehow lacked convincing evidence of it.
Lack of evidence is not proof. Never go to a court of law and try to convince the jury on "lack of evidence."

6. Even a single WMD of many types can cause death on a massive scale.
We have those people in the US of A. Yes, WMDs can kill on a massive scale. We have them, and have used them on other countries including Japan and Vietnam.

That is real danger.
All in your head. Try looking at the statistics on how many are killed on our highways and streets every single day of the week.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Feb, 2005 02:35 pm
ok boys and girls...please take it elsewhere
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Feb, 2005 02:44 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:

1. Saddam Hussein had developed WMD and had active programs to perfect more before we interrupted them.
No WMDs have been found.

This is known precisely because we invaded to determine it.

cicerone imposter wrote:
2. He had attempted to annex neighbors.
That was ten years earlier. He was removed.

The point was that his behavior indicates his character, and his propensity for annexing neighbors would make him a grave danger should he perfect his WMD.

cicerone imposter wrote:
3. He had killed enough people on purpose to give one the idea that he did not hold the lives of others in much esteem.
You are again talking about past history. Our trade ban killed more Iraqi people since then.

No, he continued murdering and torturing his people right up to the end. This shows what I intended to show, which is that he cannot be expected to hold life as being of value, which would make him very dangerous should he perfect his WMD arsenal.

cicerone imposter wrote:
4. He had lied about his WMD, and inspectors had been prevented from entering certain sites before Iraq could "sanitize" them.
That's the reason why the UN weapon's inspectors were trying to locate them.

My point was that protestations by him that he had destroyed them could not, prior to invasion, be taken as reliable, since he had a history of hiding them and lying about them.

cicerone imposter wrote:
5. The totality of the history left great doubt that he had destroyed his WMD and programs, yet, somehow lacked convincing evidence of it.
Lack of evidence is not proof. Never go to a court of law and try to convince the jury on "lack of evidence."

He was required to show affirmatively, verifiably that he had destroyed them. Furthermore, this isn't court. It was our attempt to keep someone from killing a mammoth number of our people a few years down the road.

cicerone imposter wrote:
6. Even a single WMD of many types can cause death on a massive scale.
We have those people in the US of A. Yes, WMDs can kill on a massive scale. We have them, and have used them on other countries including Japan and Vietnam.

We used them on Japan in WW2, we did not use the sort of WMD I am referring to in Vietnam. I am talking about the more powerful sorts of bioweapons or nukes, of such power that one use of one weapon one time can kill a hundred thousand people. We sure didn't use anything like that in Vietnam. All irrelevant anyway. What we did or didn't do with our WMD will not serve to protect us if an enemy acquires WMD and can sneak them into our cities.

cicerone imposter wrote:
That is real danger.
All in your head. Try looking at the statistics on how many are killed on our highways and streets every single day of the week.

How could that be interpreted as a reason for us not taking steps to prevent someone from nuking Los Angeles out of existence?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Feb, 2005 03:58 pm
Brandon

Please start a thread for your discussion, it doesn't belong here.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Feb, 2005 03:59 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
Lash wrote:
The best defense IS a good offense.

Don't you think chauvinistic nationalism on Israel's part is really an intense effort to stay alive?

I think they left out the part about the Palestinians with nail bombs strapped to their bodies detonating themselves in marketplaces.


Don't forget that there has also been a recent vote in the Israeli gov't to remove settlers from the occupied territories. Even with all of that going on, terrorists still blew up another bomb kill people outside of a nightclub. Isn't it amazing how they demand things and then don't go the steps to provide their own little bit of peace?


cicerone imposter wrote:
Doesn't change the problem one iota by looking at what happened to Jews in 67. It's the here and now that most Arabs/Muslims see the problems. They probably don't give a shet about 67. Their loss of land, jobs, schools, and hospitals probably has a great impact on them in the here and now.


Here's part of the problem with the left, they don't want people in the ME to face the facts of the things they have done in the past, like invading Israel and starting war. They give them a pass on issues such as the 48' and 67's wars and say it is in the past and want Israel to forget it ever happened. At the same time they want the US to own up to what we have done in the past and hold us responsible for what has happened. Why do the people in the ME get a pass and people in the US don't?

So what, we dropped a nuke on another country 60 almost 70 years ago and it is still thrown in our faces, Vietnam is still talked about and the "war crimes" committed still demand attention and are compared to Iraq. It was all in the past and we are dealing with something new.

Either we are all held accountable for the past or no one is. You can't forgive the wars of the Arabs, who have put themselves in their own place for the last 30 years. Palestinians wouldn't be in the positions they are in now, if it weren't for their Arab brothers trying to invade Israel. There is a past there.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Feb, 2005 04:03 pm
Baldimo wrote:

Either we are all held accountable for the past or no one is.


That's exactly (of course in German) the slogan of the neo-nazis.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Feb, 2005 04:05 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Baldimo wrote:

Either we are all held accountable for the past or no one is.


That's exactly (of course in German) the slogan of the neo-nazis.


What is your point?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Feb, 2005 04:23 pm
Exactly what I stated above. (Since you quoted it already, there's no need to repeat that, I think.)
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/20/2019 at 11:02:00