Enrique 0
'Hmm. The bible belt seems to be able to avoid miltiary action against Hollywood...that people will take the nonviolent route if it's available to them. "
The Hollywood/BB reference was just to show that they find our morality objectionable. People may take the non-violent route, but that is apparently not what is happening and we need to deal with that reality, not "maybe" or "I wish...". There is a non-violent route, the UN. They didn't take that.
Diplomacy (the non-violent choice) is only possible when there is a middle ground. Al-Queda does not have one with the US. They will negotiate to stall their own destruction, but not to resolve issues.
"I don't buy that they must attack because they don't like our culture, any more than we must attack them because we don't like theirs. There are plenty of people we don't like that we coexist with; they are no different. "
That is correct. We don't like someones culture, we don't attack it. We do co-exist. However, we are different.
Apparently, they do. They are the aggressors. They hate American culture, call us the "Great Satan". They have attacked a long list of embassies, the Cole, the WTC... Embassies are supposed to be sovereign territory and protected by their host nation. Remember Iran? You can have whatever reason you want, but embassies are against everyones rules. They don't want to co-exist or play by "rules" or be "fair".
No they aren't the same as us. They aren't going to stop unless we do something in self-defense.
>"Therefore, any attack is subject to massive and >unrelenting retaliation. Maybe they won't like us, >but they won't attack anymore either.
"Well, as I've said before, Israel has been practicing massive and unrelenting retaliation for twenty years now."
Not correctly. There used to be a maxim of ambush teams. "Ambush is murder" Well, war is all about killing. Once you start that enterprise, take out all the opposition. People want to be "fair". Take off the gloves, find the Al-Queda, kill em. I know you want to be the "good guys" or morally right. Protecting yourself is morally right.
"Will they fear us, 8000 miles away, more than the country next door that regularly retaliates? "
If it is done right.
Israel was createdafter WWII. The Palestinians were already there. I can understand their animosity.
I seriously doubt if the Israel/Palestine thing is ever going to be resolved because they both want to be in charge of the same land.
Different situation. We just want them to leave us alone. We are in our own land, they are in theirs.
They should have stayed home.
Anyone comes to your home with a knife and you shoot them, it is not a question of "that wasn't fair".
It is stupid to bring a knife to a gun fight. It is stupid to f-- with a military/technological superpower if don't even have electricity.
The Hollywood/BB reference was just to show that they find our morality objectionable. People may take the non-violent route, but that is apparently not what is happening and we need to deal with that reality, not "maybe" or "I wish...". There is a non-violent route, the UN. They didn't take that.
Diplomacy (the non-violent choice) is only possible when there is a middle ground. Al-Queda does not have one with the US. They will negotiate to stall their own destruction, but not to resolve issues.
"I don't buy that they must attack because they don't like our culture, any more than we must attack them because we don't like theirs. There are plenty of people we don't like that we coexist with; they are no different. "
That is correct. We don't like someones culture, we don't attack it. We do co-exist. However, we are different.
Apparently, they do. They are the aggressors. They hate American culture, call us the "Great Satan". They have attacked a long list of embassies, the Cole, the WTC... Embassies are supposed to be sovereign territory and protected by their host nation. Remember Iran? You can have whatever reason you want, but embassies are against everyones rules. They don't want to co-exist or play by "rules" or be "fair".
No they aren't the same as us. They aren't going to stop unless we do something in self-defense.
>"Therefore, any attack is subject to massive and >unrelenting retaliation. Maybe they won't like us, >but they won't attack anymore either.
"Well, as I've said before, Israel has been practicing massive and unrelenting retaliation for twenty years now."
Not correctly. There used to be a maxim of ambush teams. "Ambush is murder" Well, war is all about killing. Once you start that enterprise, take out all the opposition. People want to be "fair". Take off the gloves, find the Al-Queda, kill em. I know you want to be the "good guys" or morally right. Protecting yourself is morally right.
"Will they fear us, 8000 miles away, more than the country next door that regularly retaliates? "
If it is done right.
Israel was createdafter WWII. The Palestinians were already there. I can understand their animosity.
I seriously doubt if the Israel/Palestine thing is ever going to be resolved because they both want to be in charge of the same land.
Different situation. We just want them to leave us alone. We are in our own land, they are in theirs.
They should have stayed home.
Anyone comes to your home with a knife and you shoot them, it is not a question of "that wasn't fair".
It is stupid to bring a knife to a gun fight. It is stupid to f-- with a military/technological superpower if don't even have electricity.
seedy 0
QuoteIt seems to me that people from the U.S. have great respect for what their Flag represents; however, on the other hand, it also seems very incongruous that they are willing to use that same Flag in a somewhat debatable fashion (i.e., underwear, toilet seats, etc.). In other Countries it is a Federal crime to "desecrate" a National insignia in such a fashion, and you may even be put in jail for it.
I don't like it when people desecrate the flag of my country, but I am damn thankful to live in a country where they have the freedom and the protected right to do that if that is their choice.
I intend to live forever -- so far, so good.
Enrique 0
but I am damn thankful to live in a country where they have the freedom and the protected right to do that if that is their choice.
*** *** I think I hear George Washington and the Nation's fathers rolling in their grave ***
Guest
QuoteQuoteWe knew where Abu Nidal was
Not only that but there was a CIA field agent that had the means to kill him. He couldn't do it because it was against US law and he could have gone to prison for a long time. He chose to not take that risk and follow orders. I'm not positive I would have.
What I find interesting is that Iraq whacked him just recently (suicide, my hairy white ass). I initially thought this was because Hussein didn't want to draw any more attention to himself; id est, whacking Nidal was a good distraction.
Now, after having given it more thought, it occurs to me that Nidal was perceived by Hussein as a threat to his absolute rule of Iraq. I can't think of another reason that an Arab "hero" would die such an ignominious death in a friendly country.
"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."
QuoteWrong! The UN should be the power that finally overthrows Saddam.
The UN? I really have had it with the UN. The UN has NO place in today's world. The UN was created for a reason, and that reason is now nullified. It has become the demure master with the Big Dog on a heavy chain. The UN likes to play their little holier than thou games as we (the US) fund them and fight their wars. But god forbid we want to go defend ourselves from the evils of this world.
If we want a global nation, fine. Let's put it to a vote. I say disband the UN and let everybody think for themselves. It has outlived it's usefulness and has become the all-powerful wizard.
peace,
mike
Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.
"The UN has NO place in today's world. The UN was created for a reason, and that reason is now nullified. It has become the demure master with the Big Dog on a heavy chain. The UN likes to play their little holier than thou games as we (the US) fund them and fight their wars."
>>>exercising massive restraint<<<
I can only say that I disagree with your viewpoint Mike.
>>>exercising massive restraint<<<
I can only say that I disagree with your viewpoint Mike.
--------------------
He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson
He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson
billvon 2,400
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>Diplomacy (the non-violent choice) is only possible when there is a
> middle ground. Al-Queda does not have one with the US. They will
> negotiate to stall their own destruction, but not to resolve issues.
I agree that Al-Quaeda is not amenable to negotiation. They are a terrorist organization who has attacked us; I'm all for going after them. I hope we don't lose our focus on that in our zeal to go after other people we don't like.
>Embassies are supposed to be sovereign territory and protected by
> their host nation. Remember Iran?
Remember back when the US destroyed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade? Again, hard to claim moral superiority there.
>Different situation. We just want them to leave us alone. We are in
> our own land, they are in theirs. They should have stayed home.
OK, I'm having trouble figuring out what you're referring to here. A while back you said:
"I think that the Muslim community views us the way that the Bible Belt in the US views Hollywood. They believe that if they don't destroy us, that the US will destroy the moral foundation of their country. . . .
My point is, as long as we exist, they will keep attacking."
Are we talking about just Al-Quaeda or the Muslim community here?
> middle ground. Al-Queda does not have one with the US. They will
> negotiate to stall their own destruction, but not to resolve issues.
I agree that Al-Quaeda is not amenable to negotiation. They are a terrorist organization who has attacked us; I'm all for going after them. I hope we don't lose our focus on that in our zeal to go after other people we don't like.
>Embassies are supposed to be sovereign territory and protected by
> their host nation. Remember Iran?
Remember back when the US destroyed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade? Again, hard to claim moral superiority there.
>Different situation. We just want them to leave us alone. We are in
> our own land, they are in theirs. They should have stayed home.
OK, I'm having trouble figuring out what you're referring to here. A while back you said:
"I think that the Muslim community views us the way that the Bible Belt in the US views Hollywood. They believe that if they don't destroy us, that the US will destroy the moral foundation of their country. . . .
My point is, as long as we exist, they will keep attacking."
Are we talking about just Al-Quaeda or the Muslim community here?
I couldn't agree with you more. Anything with a U.S. flag will sell like crazy (and I do mean "anything"). It is always great [political] advertisement.
It seems to me that people from the U.S. have great respect for what their Flag represents; however, on the other hand, it also seems very incongruous that they are willing to use that same Flag in a somewhat debatable fashion (i.e., underwear, toilet seats, etc.). In other Countries it is a Federal crime to "desecrate" a National insignia in such a fashion, and you may even be put in jail for it.
Different countries, different rules.