|
Post by Challenger on Aug 15, 2004 17:26:54 GMT -5
Following that logic I have a prophecy for you
Welcome to nuked villa Population Japan USA
You seriously don't see the problem of shooting innocent civilians to attack an enemy that might not even be there. That chances are have long fled the country when you attack.
You would really become what you hate to fight terrorism.
How long do you think the rest of the world is going to put up with that sort of rubbish. You've got a suspected terrorist in you country we're gonna invade unless you surrender him/her to us for internment in a prison facility illegal by your own laws as well as international laws, to life long imprisonment without a trial.
What happens when you have to go attack North Korea, China, Russia, France, heck even the UK are targets. You'll destroy the world in a nuclear holocaust because you’d rather have revenge than peace.
Heck by your logic the UK should have invaded the USA years ago. Its a well known fact there were gun running out of the US. Would you be happy with that outcome? With all out war with a country capable of destroying your entire country, its entire people. Sure it would be mutual annihilation but it stopped the terrorists.
What really makes you think the USA can do on a global scale what the UK couldn't do in her own backyard.
Point out to me one successful campaign against terrorists/freedom fighters/partisans call them what you will, that was won by attacking their homes and families. Ask the French in Spain. Ask the Germans how it worked in Russia, France, Yugoslavia. Ask the British in Ireland and Israel in Palestine. How arrogant do you have to be to believe you can do better against a foe many times greater than those I've mentioned and spread over the entire globe than all these countries. And lets face it at the periods I've commented on these armies who failed so totally were among the best in the world.
The really scary thing is. You are going to destroy the world. Your the only country that could, that has the will to do it and the capability. You would destroy the world rather than admit that you are facing a foe force cannot defeat.
Challenger
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Aug 15, 2004 21:46:58 GMT -5
Gal, you have an interesting memory.
Ummm, the government in Spain was changed AFTER the terrorist attack, not before. The vote was AFTER, not before. History is confusing enough with going the revisionist route.
And, believe it or not, THERE WERE NO TIES TO AL QUAEDA WITH IRAQ. ONLY THE US BELIEVES THAT ONE. No one EVER believed that to be true. Country after country said that there were no ties with Iraq, yet Bush STILL insists that the ties are there and sheeplike Republicans still believe him. How much more proof do you need when your own State Department says that there are no ties.
And, dontcha think that should have been proven or disproven BEFORE invading a country?
|
|
|
Post by Merkuri on Aug 16, 2004 10:40:56 GMT -5
I forget where I heard this, but before we went into Iraq there had been zero attacks by Iraqi terrorists in the past 20 years or so. ZERO. If there were terrorists there, they were leaving us alone. That is, until we went and invaded their country and they opened their doors to our real enemies.
And Gal, I think you misunderstand what a terrorist is. It's not like, say, Irish or Caucasians (just random categories), where there's a finite number of them in the world (not counting reproduction). If you could just press a button and kill all the Irish in the world (sorry, just an example, no offense intended), then that's it, no more Irish forever and ever. But if you could press a button and kill all the terrorists in the world then you're far from done. Terrorism is like a phoenix, it'll spring from it's own ashes stronger and with a vengence. Or if you want another mythical metaphore, it's like a hydra. Chop off one head and two or three more grow back. You CANNOT just go out and kill every terrorist. Even if it were physically possible to do it, it still wouldn't work.
The only solution is to figure out why these people are willing to strap explosives to themselves and make sure they don't have that excuse anymore. I'm not saying that we should give into their demands, that's just encouraging them. But we could start by being a little nicer to the people that they get their bomb fodder from. If we take away their hate then we take away their human ammo.
I'm sure you've heard the expression, "Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire." But have you ever tried to fight a kitchen fire by setting your sofa ablaze? It ain't gonna work. Usually fighting fire with fire just makes things worse. In most cases, you really need to fight fire with water.
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Aug 16, 2004 12:16:09 GMT -5
Amazing, simply amazing.
If we attack terrorist, the terrorist are not innocent, no matter what anyone says. Why hasn't Israel gotten rid of Hamas? It's a small country. Why can't you get rid of the IRA. There are many reasons, most people just don't want to hear. But as the evil and cruel conservative, it's not our fight.
And yes Spain changed governments AFTER they were attacked. To please the terrorist and were attacked AFTER they changed.
Merkuri, hmmmmmm, I won't even go in to what you said.
|
|
|
Post by Merkuri on Aug 16, 2004 14:19:25 GMT -5
Merkuri, hmmmmmm, I won't even go in to what you said. I don't know where you learned to debate, but where I went to school failing to rebutt a statement was considered conceeding the point. So, thank you.
|
|
|
Post by Challenger on Aug 16, 2004 14:57:41 GMT -5
If we attack terrorist, the terrorist are not innocent, no matter what anyone says. Why hasn't Israel gotten rid of Hamas? It's a small country. Why can't you get rid of the IRA. There are many reasons, most people just don't want to hear. But as the evil and cruel conservative, it's not our fight. So let me get this straight. The USA gets a bloody nose the rest of the world has to jump in and help. But its ok for you to fund terrorists that don't attack you? Oh and BTW we tried getting rid of the IRA by shooting them. Israel is constantly bombing Palastine. We only got 'rid' of the IRA by actualy working together to come to a peace settlement. Israel oddly enough still has terrorist attacks. Final point. I never said the terrorists were innocent. I did however say your going to fail because what the USA seems intent on doing is bloody stupid. Galadon do you intend on actualy reply to any points made in this debate? Challenger
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Aug 16, 2004 16:03:35 GMT -5
I'll respond but the damn library have trouble with computers again. Allow me to have fun with merk first.
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Aug 16, 2004 16:23:58 GMT -5
Since Merkuri challenged me in claiming victory, I must respond. From what I learned in debates you state the source of your information, "I forget where I read it." doesn't count.
How do you know that there has been ZERO attacks from Iraq, you have inside information on the nationality of every terrorist.
Now your showing your true liberal self, it's either all or nothing. Who said kill all the Irish. Are there terrorist in Ireland, yes, so all Irish people are terrorist. (in liberal speak). Like palestine, Lebanon, etc. Every one who lives in the area is not a terrorist. You kill the terrorist, what I hear from liberals is "OH YOU JUST WANT TO KILL EVERYONE," veins blundging and glaring eyes. Is this how conservatives think or liberals, I pick the second (of course).
Why are there people that strap bombs on them and run into market to blow it up, well that another topic.
About fighting fire with fire, hmmmmm, your example must me made to be off the mark on purpose.
Fire fighters use a fire break in forest fire. That the burn the area and remove the fuel for the fire to expland any farther. Fighting fire with fire.
Now I'm sure the "I hate America" crowd thinks were a bunch of terrorist. But how many run down to the welfare office. If were so bad in this country there's always Cuba. but I don't see many running to Cuba or China or Iran or the Sudan or North Korea.
What I gather from your statement is American troops are terrorists. Or would you care to clear up the statement fight fire with fire.
|
|
|
Post by Challenger on Aug 16, 2004 16:50:35 GMT -5
To continue your fire break example you've backed yourself into a corner.
Your comparing people, human beings, concious self aware people to a plant. What your example is suggesting that it is ok to kill innocent people (trees) to prevent terrorists (the fire) from continueing.
Was that your intension?
BTW since when in the USA was the lack of proof either way proof of guilt. Or more to the point since when was this 'right'.
Challenger
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Aug 16, 2004 16:54:38 GMT -5
I'm commenting on Merkuri's use of the saying. I do believe she is confused about it's proper context. Oh that is a far out in left field reach, but nice try, Merkuri uses a saying in a confusing manner, but I am comparing humans to plants and killing them , LOL. Nice twist on words you have a career in politics Challenger.
|
|
|
Post by Challenger on Aug 16, 2004 16:58:44 GMT -5
I was under the impression that to fight fire with fire meant fighting back in the same manner you were attacked Oh that is a far out in left field reach, but nice try, Merkuri uses a saying in a confusing manner, but I am comparing humans to plants and killing them , LOL. Nice twist on words you have a career in politics Challenger. I'm not sure if thats a compliments or an insult. Thanks I think Challenger
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Aug 16, 2004 17:01:57 GMT -5
You have the meaning right. But I wait for Merkuri to respond.
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Aug 16, 2004 20:35:56 GMT -5
Gal, why should Merk respond? You didn't actually address a single point.
Killing terrorists is NOT a solution. It doesn't work. If it worked then Israel and Ireland would be the safest places in the world. Why you are blathering on about meaningless junk I have no idea.
YOU are the one stating that Iraq was a terrorist state. Where are your sources? Where are the huge number of Iraqi terrorists campaigning against the Evil West? Snort. Kinda like how all the 9/11 bombers are from Saudi, but they are somehow Iraqi terrorists.
How about all the support by America of terrorism? Or what do you call bulldozing thousands of houses with people still inside? Military action? Or allowing overflights between America and Canada picking up and dropping off illegal arms to Oka? Or any of the hundreds of other examples.
See, conservatives want to draw the picture in pure black and white. Us and them. If you're not with us, then you're with them. It's absolute crap. Just because we don't agree with you doesn't mean that we agree with them. We just wish you'd both take a long walk off a short pier and leave the rest of us the heck alone.
The war on Terror is exactly the same as that other oh-so-successful conservative war: The War on Drugs. It will drag on year after year, sinking billions of dollars to keep overpaid analysts employed and never once actually accomplish a single thing.
Let's face it, Bush has not succeeded in a single goal. Not one. He has not brought Bin Laden to justice. He has not stopped terrorism. In fact, terrorist attacks have almost doubled since 2001. The economy is starting to studder back to life, but that's despite Bush, not because. He did not find WMD's in Iraq. He has not brokered a peace in Israel. He has not made America safer.
What has he done?
|
|
|
Post by Merkuri on Aug 16, 2004 21:31:54 GMT -5
Since Merkuri challenged me in claiming victory, I must respond. From what I learned in debates you state the source of your information, "I forget where I read it." doesn't count. How do you know that there has been ZERO attacks from Iraq, you have inside information on the nationality of every terrorist. Yeah, yeah, I know. Finding a quote you don't remember exactly, especially about a topic so vague and popular as "terrorism against the us" is very hard to research on the web. Let's see.... oh, here's a good site: www.terrorism.com. *does a search for terrorism involving the USA* Okay, this goes all the way back to 1970. I doubt they have every terrorist attack between 1970 and today, but I think this is the best info a civilian like me can hope to get. Now, let's look for any attacks against the US that originated in Iraq. Absolutely nothing before Sept 11th. I know, it's not the best evidence I can find, but that's all I got. If you can find me evidence of any Iraqi attacks before Sept 11th I'll be all ears. Did you read what I wrote? I didn't suggest you wanted to kill all the Irish. I didn't even suggest you wanted to kill all the Afghanis or Iraqis. I was just using it as a counterexample to explain why you cannot kill all terrorists, like Bush is trying to do. Really? I thought we were talking about terrorism, and I suggested that we need to find out why these terrorists want to kill us, and their methods of killing us include the extreme act of suicide bombing. Why shouldn't I ask why they strap bombs on themselves while talking about how to fight terrorism? I know that. But they do not use that technique in a house. Then they use water. It's a frickin metaphore. In some cases (large forest fires) they use fire, but in most cases (house fires) they use water. I'm just suggesting that Bush is using fire where he should use water. I don't need a lesson on fire extinguishing techniques. I'm not suggesting American troops are terrorists, just that they're violent (fire), and sometimes violence doesn't work. Sometimes you need to stop and think (water). Damn, this is gonna be slow going if I need to explain every metaphor I use.
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Aug 16, 2004 21:50:45 GMT -5
This is from Kerry's homepage:
Gee, a totally vague and vacuous mission statement. Completely void of substance. NOT! Here is a clear statement of his policy. It's just that Bush supporters would rather sit back and make baseless accusations since they know that Bush lacks any substance whatsoever.
|
|