0
   

Rosie and Extremism

 
 
echi
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Sep, 2006 06:27 pm
snood wrote:

Well, I'd like to think I like a peaceful, reasonable resolution as much as anyone, but -
If I find myself standing in the ruins of a nuclear attack on NY, and if I were someone who could effect big decisions on a national scale, I would be trying to retaliate before I sat anyone down for a tete-a- tete.



Maybe I would, too. But if you don't have the most responsible options at the top of your instincts-list, then you shouldn't run for office.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Sep, 2006 06:31 pm
timberlandko wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

Here you run into trouble - your proposal presupposes one's opponent might engage in open and honest dialogue - a circumstance decidedly not equivalent to that in which we today find ourelves reference organized global terrorism.


You don't engage the terrorists, you engage those societies that support them. Carrot and stick. They know we have the stick, now, do we have the carrot?

Cycloptichorn

Oh, we have, and offer, plenty of carrots - apparently, however, "they" seem to not much care for carrots, nor do they evidence prudent respect for the stick, but rather are intent upon taking over the corral. In practice whatchya gotta do with a critter like that - if you figure on letting it live among the others anyhow - is hobble it, secure it by a short lead to a sturdy post, feed it only after all the others have been tended, and otherwise ignore it. Takes a while, but they come around. Of course, if there's no reason to let such a critter live among the others ...


haha. Here's a question: what do you think, from the point of view of the Muslim societies that harbor (or at least don't oppose) the extremist terrorists, is the carrot? I have a feeling we may have different ideas about what these people want.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Sep, 2006 06:53 pm
echi wrote:
Quote:
your proposal presupposes one's opponent might engage in open and honest dialogue

timber-

I don't trust my enemy. I recognize the value in getting as close as we can. We want as much information as possible, to be absolutely certain that we always make the best, possible decision.

To expect " ... the best, possible decision ... " always will be made is unrealistic; actual cirumstances all too frequently render that an unachievable ideal. The best that may be hoped is that poor decisions be made infrequently and that their consequences be not catastrophic.

Quote:
You say the Bush guys are perfectly willing to sit down and talk, any time. They don't even say that. They say they're just not interested in having relations with countries that are different. Why?

Straw man. I say no such thing as you allege, nor does the Bush Administration say any such thing as you allege. I say, as does The Bush Administration, that fruitful dialogue is possible only with reasonable people; there is no point attempting to engage the unreasonable through reason. The Bush Administration does not reject dialogue with states on the basis of those states being "different", it rejects dialogue - reasoned discourse with legitimate exchange of ideas - with parties self-declared and self-demonstrated to be not merely unamenable but incontravertably opposed to same.

Quote:
Why would someone want to disregard real diplomatic efforts?

Straw man again; no evidence of willingness to engage in legitimate, real diplomatic effort has been presented; there is no one with whom to negotiate.

Quote:
The United States has the most/best weapons, so no need to bluff, there. What do we have to hide?? Why not sit down at the table and let the American people hear what evil sounds like?

Straw man yet again - the US neither has anything to hide in such regard nor does it attempt to hide anything in such regard. No gathering at any "table" is necessary to " ... let the American people hear what evil sounds like ... ", all the people need to do is listen to what it sounds like, as, for instance, in the guise of the chief spokespersons for Iran and Venezuela, it spoke for itself at the UN these past two days, and as it expressed itself in Cuba last week.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Sep, 2006 06:53 pm
echi wrote:
snood wrote:

Well, I'd like to think I like a peaceful, reasonable resolution as much as anyone, but -
If I find myself standing in the ruins of a nuclear attack on NY, and if I were someone who could effect big decisions on a national scale, I would be trying to retaliate before I sat anyone down for a tete-a- tete.



Maybe I would, too. But if you don't have the most responsible options at the top of your instincts-list, then you shouldn't run for office.


I'm not sure I buy your premise that sitting down to talk after a nuclear strike is the most reasonable response.
0 Replies
 
echi
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Sep, 2006 07:22 pm
"Straw Man!! Straw Man!!"
Don't play dumb, timber. If you need clarification on something, why not just ask? This is a discussion we're having. It's not math class.
0 Replies
 
echi
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Sep, 2006 08:03 pm
timberlandko wrote:
echi wrote:
Quote:
The United States has the most/best weapons, so no need to bluff, there. What do we have to hide?? Why not sit down at the table and let the American people hear what evil sounds like?

Straw man yet again - the US neither has anything to hide in such regard nor does it attempt to hide anything in such regard. No gathering at any "table" is necessary to " ... let the American people hear what evil sounds like ... ", all the people need to do is listen to what it sounds like, as, for instance, in the guise of the chief spokespersons for Iran and Venezuela, it spoke for itself at the UN these past two days, and as it expressed itself in Cuba last week.




Is it safe to say, then, that you believe these people are "evil"? Or do you believe they represent "evil"? This may be important to the discussion, and I want to be sure not to misrepresent your position.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Sep, 2006 08:32 pm
I dunno as I can go with "evil" per se - thats sorta abstract and subjective. I do feel they represent and promote one or another sort of dictatorially totalitarian, freedom & liberty denying, undemocraticly imposed and enforced, inhumanely repressive ideology, and I must oppose - to and including the extreme of violence - any such ideology.
0 Replies
 
echi
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Sep, 2006 09:10 pm
Quote:
You say the Bush guys are perfectly willing to sit down and talk, any time.



straw man. right.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Sep, 2006 09:12 pm
timberlandko wrote:
I dunno as I can go with "evil" per se - thats sorta abstract and subjective. I do feel they represent and promote one or another sort of dictatorially totalitarian, freedom & liberty denying, undemocraticly imposed and enforced, inhumanely repressive ideology, and I must oppose - to and including the extreme of violence - any such ideology.


"Inhumane" is sorta abstract and subjective.
0 Replies
 
echi
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Sep, 2006 09:29 pm
that's one, snood.




timberlandko wrote:
I say, as does The Bush Administration, that fruitful dialogue is possible only with reasonable people; there is no point attempting to engage the unreasonable through reason.


A dialogue may help to identify who's who.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Sep, 2006 02:11 pm
...or to have some sort of notion what constitutes an unreasonable person incapable of fruitful dialogue.
I have a feeling that when it comes to negotiation or compromise, the US is likely the least flexible and the least willing participant party. Hence the international opinion of them as a bully.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Sep, 2006 02:27 pm
I still want to know what the carrot is...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
echi
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Sep, 2006 02:39 pm
an orange stick
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Sep, 2006 02:58 pm
Atavistic wrote:
plainoldme wrote:
Atavistic -- Sounds like you support violence.

I support reality.


What a syllogism! Violence is reality!
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Sep, 2006 03:00 pm
gungasnake wrote:
George Bush has tried to take the high road, and it may or may not work. It would have a much better chance of working without all the backbiting and treasonous activity of demokkkrats and
owners and straighten out a few other leftover CFR/demokkkrat policies which have been poisoning relations with the orthodox and slavic worlds, but I wouldn't see that as any sort of a show stopper.



You must wear a blindfold, 24/7.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Sep, 2006 03:28 pm
Blindfold??

Why don't you tell us what you think would have happened had republican leaders in 1942 or 1943 ever conducted themselves the way demokkkrat leaders have been conducting themselves for the last three or four years, or if some sort sort of a republican newspaper had published the plans for D-Day the way the losers at the NY Times published the basic plan for shutting down terrorist financing after being specifically asked not to?
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Sep, 2006 03:30 pm
Better yet, do you feel safer on account of those dickheads having done that?
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Sep, 2006 03:35 pm
Why don't you stop ranting? Your blood pressure has to be out of bounds.
0 Replies
 
echi
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Sep, 2006 12:06 pm
timberlandko,
I will be more careful with the straw men from now on (although, I only admit to one). :wink:
About diplomacy, all I am saying is that it should be the first step to consider. I understand that it may not be possible to enter into negotiations in every case, and Bush may have a good reason for deciding not to participate, now. If so, he has not made it known.
So, what can we reasonably assume? To many, it seems clear that the U.S. does not want to avoid an armed conflict because, after all, that is where the U.S. has the real advantage. It's also the quickest way to bring about regime change, which they clearly have an interest in. The U.S. apparently does not have the diplomatic advantage. And, if we do, why would we not use it?
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Sep, 2006 02:12 pm
gungasnake wrote:
Better yet, do you feel safer on account of those dickheads having done that?


Do you mean the CIA employees who flew the planes into the WTC?

Do you mean the gang that can't shot straight in the White House?

Do you mean people like Frist in Congress?

Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes

I feel very threatened by all of those black hats.
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
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Rosie and Extremism
  3. » Page 13
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 05/08/2025 at 12:44:58