Ticomaya wrote:The UN has demonstrated itself to be an impotent body, a paper tiger at best, capable of only rattling sabres, but incapable or unwilling to take action to back up its own resolutions.
You are wrong, Tico. In your mind, however, your erroneous image of the United Nations as a flaccid organ somehow justifies your preference to disregard reason and diplomacy in favor of standing by a fully erect missile while you issue threats and ultimatums.
Debra Law wrote:Since you have ruled out diplomatic efforts, how else do you propose that the United States prevent Iran from developing nuclear capabilities in the event it is UNACCEPTABLE for the United States to ALLOW Iran to have nuclear weapon capabilities?
Ticomaya wrote:I've not ruled out diplomatic efforts, . . .
Yeah right. See what you said above. You're contradicting yourself.
Ticomaya wrote:. . . but the key to the success of same falls to Iran. If they insist on developing their nulcear program, we should issue an ultimatum -- alone, or with a few other countries willing to take a stand on this issue. If Iran continues to develop its nuclear program, we should bomb the nuclear program out of existencej.
An ultimatum is a threat. It is coercion and intimidation. You're advocating that the United States should dictate to Iran that it must "do as we say or else we'll blow you or parts of you out of existence." That threat is coupled with the present ability to effectuate mass destruction. Despite your protests to the contrary, you're advocating terrorism as a means for the United States to control the conduct of other countries.
Ticomaya wrote:I'm not advocating a war of aggression. Simply a few well-placed bombs, if the need arises.
You have no credibility. Bombing another country as a penalty for not obeying an ultimatum is an act of aggression and a crime against peace.
Ticomaya wrote:I can think of nothing that will have a greater deleterious effect on the Democrats at the polls than if they adopt that mentality.
On the contrary, Tico. You are deceiving yourself. The American people are extremely unhappy with our continued military presence in Iraq with no signs of stability within the country; the billions of dollars that it costs us every month to maintain our presence; the continuous loss of life; and no plans to exit within the foreseeable future. The early enthusiam that your comrades espoused for the war has waned and has turned into dissent. The American people are extremely wary of an untrustworty administration that threatens more war against Bush's alleged "axis of evil." The American people are starting to smarten up and to realize that the evil we fear might not be sitting thousands of miles away in the middle east, but rather sitting in our own White House.
A let's "bomb the hell out of our [perceived] enemies" mentality in response to "national security" issues, real or imagined, grows old and people start to yearn for peace and sensible diplomacy. Very few Americans find comfort in being the parents of dead war heros. Accordingly, if you and your ilk continue to appear as the stubborn bullies of the world with your trigger-happy fingers on the missile launching buttons, your partisan buddies will be voted out of power.
If the Republican Party wants to maintain control of the White House and our Congress, they need to "make peace, not war." Your desire to flex muscle and to flippantly ridicule the "peaceniks" is going to bite YOU in the ass. After all, it was the anti-war movement that ultimately led to the demise of the Nixon administration.
Ticomaya wrote:I'm advocating an ultimatum be given to the Iranian government. That is not coercion or intimidation of the Iranian civilian population. Read your definition again, Debra. Again, let me know if you need help with the big words.
You may be deceiving yourself, but you're not convinving me that an ultimatum ("do as I say or I'll bomb you outta existence") is not coercion or intimidation.
Ticomaya wrote:You get a clue. You are advocating a position that would have the effect of chilling my free speech rights. It is your position that is wrong, and your blatent hypocrisy is obvious to everyone. You are advocating a "slippery slope" on this issue ... one that will likely bite you in the ass in a later debate when you flip flop.
Boo hoo.
If I start whining that I'm "merely talking" as you are doing, and proclaim through sniveling tears that some other poster's criticism is "chilling my right to free speech," I most certainly hope I get slapped up for being a dumbass.
Ticomaya wrote:Oh, and you should know I'm thinking of reporting you to the ACLU. They might make you turn in your ID card and badge. Be forewarned.
If I thought your threat had any merit, I would be clutching my alleged ACLU card to my heart in fear of losing it. But alas, I don't think the ACLU is going to admonish me for exercising my right of free speech to criticize fear-mongering and war-mongering by poor-poor-Tico who advocates bombing Iran or parts of Iran out of existence if the Iranians don't comply with his ultimatum.
Why don't you stick to your bombing threats as they are far more effective.
Quote:Terrorism consists of acts that appear to be intended--
`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.
Quote:And for
me to engage in terrorism here, I must commit
an act that is intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population. Are you suggesting that my words on this forum -- clearly protected speech -- constitute
acts intended to intimidate or coerce the civilian population of Iran? Are you serious?
Tico, your attempt to distinquish "words" from "acts" has no persuasive value except to those few people who do not know that certain uses of WORDS (speech) are indeed prohibited may be penalized as criminal ACTS.
You have failed to acknowledge (at least on YOUR part) that intimidation and coercion is most often effectuated through the use of words. You immediately condemn Iran because of words allegedly spoken by its leader--e.g., that Isreal ought to be wiped from the face of the earth. And, because those words were allegedly spoken, you feel justified in stating that the United States should issue an ultimatum and, if Iran does not change its policies under the threat of mass destruction, then we should blow Iran or parts of Iran out of existence.
Simply, Tico, you think nothing of condemning others for their words and advocating violence against them -- but as soon as someone condemns your words, you wrap yourself up in your right to free speech and declare that you're offended because someone criticized your words as terroristic.
If Osama Bin Laden posted a message on this board condemning United States policies and issued an ultimatum demanding that the United States "cease and desist" or he would advocate a "few well-placed bombs," wouldn't that be terrorism?
When someone else threatens OUR country, that's terrorism. But when we threaten Iran, that's NOT terrorism?
If we want to live in a peaceful world without the threat of terrorism hanging over our heads, we need to change our superior, arrogant attitude toward the rest of the world. Your "do as we say, not as we do" mentality, which you share with other people in your political sphere, isn't working to the benefit of our nation. You and your comrades are causing far more problems than you solve. The American people of all political spectrums are beginning to realize that we need better leaders who are willing to roll up their sleeves and perform the hard work of diplomacy rather than wave their war missiles around.
