| Author | Message | ||
     Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 1513 Registered: 1-2003  |
Bush's war of conquest... Tell that to the duly elected governments of Iraq and Afghanistan. Paul, it is YOUR perspective that is antithetical to human life. You don't care about human rights, freedom, security. Where is you outrage about the millions killed by middle eastern tyrants? Where is your outrage about women being killed for the crime of being raped? Who should stand up for them? If not us, who? The UN? I think the victims in Rwanda and Sudan might disagree with you there. And I don't advocate any deaths, I advocate that the needs of the many outwiegh the needs of the few or the one. If a million have to fight and die to save tens of millions from death and free hundreds of millions from tyranny, so be it. The only way to deal with terrorists is to change the very environment that creates them. That is what Bush is doing. in the short term that may, may increase localized insurgencies and terrorists, but they will and are being killed. Then once freedom takes hold, there will be no tolerance for it. Just as we saw in Afghanistan and as we're seeing in Iraq. You want to make a double jump where Bush is instituting the Evans gambit. (thats checkers vs chess if you didn't get it). You don't want to strive to eliminate terror, you want to be liked by everyone. You want other countries to fight our battles for us. You want to be defensive instead of offensive. You want to treat terrorists as criminals instead of what they are, enemies. Thank god the country isn't following your path. Oh and nice avoiding the question. enjoy your false moral highground. Too bad... if you really cared about saving lives, your energy could be put to good use. | ||
| sbenois Citizen Username: Sbenois Post Number: 13043 Registered: 10-2001  |
That is one hell of a great post Michael. | ||
| anon Citizen Username: Anon Post Number: 1632 Registered: 6-2002 |
"It will take sacrifice to change the worldf for the better. A million lives to save tens of millions and give basic human rights to hundreds of millions more. Yup, well worth it." That's the creed of a fanatic utopian idealist. The followers of Lenin and Mao would not disagree. The Palestinian suicide bombers could tatoo it to their chests. And the followers of Osama Bin Laden certainly believe that a million deaths is a small price for freeing the Islamic World from "slavery" to the West, defeating the "Enemies of God" and bringing the Rule of God to the World. Reminds me of the old peace slogan: "Fighting for Peace is like F****** for Chastity" | ||
| sbenois Citizen Username: Sbenois Post Number: 13045 Registered: 10-2001 |
Farting? Fishing? Fashion? Fighting for Peace is like Fashion for Chastity? That doesn't make any sense. Why do you always post these brain teasers? | ||
| sbenois Citizen Username: Sbenois Post Number: 13046 Registered: 10-2001 |
It would make sense if it was something like fornicating. But that's too many letters. Obviously. | ||
| sbenois Citizen Username: Sbenois Post Number: 13047 Registered: 10-2001 |
Could it be farmers? Like farmers for chastity? | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 3046 Registered: 8-2003 |
When Michael says that Bush is trying to change the conditions that breed terrorism, I'm reminded of how that used to be done. And it wasn't just terrorism -- but poverty (which breeds terrorism they say), and tyranical governments that suppress people (many of which we supported to balance who the Russians supported in the Cold War), and lack of clean water, and nurses, blah blah blah. Efforts previously were bandaids at best, and enabling efforts of the very regimes that were part of the problem with their graft and wanton disregard for their own people as the UN and NGOs and nations threw money into the cesspool. I also don't get that spreading democracy was an afterthought. Powell was reported to have said "if you break it, you own it" very early on with Iraq, and that thinking had to be there for Afghanistan. Bush could have easily left Afghanistan blasting our enemies and just continued blasting away where ever they fled without a thought to freedom. He could have just rebuilt the lost housing stock on his way out the door, or not even that. Same could be said after WW2. With Bush I don't believe that was ever the plan -- ever. So to say leaving a free(er) society behind after a military campaign wasn't ever part of the equation isn't accurate -- whether we found WMD or not. | ||
| anon Citizen Username: Anon Post Number: 1634 Registered: 6-2002 |
I tried posting the word I wanted to post but I got a message saying "Error -The following word is not allowed on this discussion board: "#%@*&^@" But the word was actually printed out in the Error message. So I should have said "Fighting for Peace is like Having Sexual Intercourse for Chastity", but I did not know that Michael Powell was monitoring MOL. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 1976 Registered: 5-2001  |
So, in a nutshell, the way to stop bad people from killing others is to kill them. That is what you're saying, Michael, am I wrong? You've glibly co-opted the liberal point, "the only way to deal with terrorists is to change the very environment that creates them" but you just wanna kill this particular bunch of bad guys first, right? After those guys are gone -- all of them, presumably -- then we you'll try to figure out what made them into bad guys in the first place. When does the killing stop? Can't you see how fallacious this thinking is? Don't you realize that this kind of rationale is as old as civilization? You CAN'T kill all the bad guys and then say to everyone that's left, "Okay, new game. We're starting over now. Everything is fine." You're not supporting killing these guys because you want to solve a problem. Admit it, you just want some kind of vengeance for 9/11 - even though Iraq had nothing to do with that. Admit, further, that you are unaffected by the death and horror that has occurred in Iraq to date, as long as you don't personally know anyone involved and can crow that this is all about spreading freedom. Admit that you don't care about Iraqis and whether or not they can determine their own fate, you only want their fate to be of a sort that you or others like you can ultimately exploit. You are wrong. You are wrong about people on MOL and wrong about liberals. In this world, at this time, it is the right wing that is willing or even eager to throw away lives so they can smarmily preen for each other. It is the right that has all the rhetoric but none of the creative solutions, only violence. It is the right that has no interest in acting unless there are considerable material interests at stake, in which case some ostensibly righteous justification will be presented as the reason for action. It is the right that hates what America has historically stood for. Conservatives of earlier times would be (and are) disgusted. | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 795 Registered: 7-2004 |
notehead: hear hear! | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 1517 Registered: 1-2003 |
Notehead, you should change your UID to Strawman, because that is all of your arguments. You are so FOS on this one you are literally making me sick to my stomach. I'm going to write this really slowly for you... The way to stop terrorists from wanting to kill people is eliminate the benefits of terrorist ways. You do that by spreading freedom and democracy throughout the world... AND by killing the ones that refuse to work with their compatriots to build a free and peaceful society. Free people don't sponsor terror. Free people would rather build a nice life for themselves and their families than blow themselves up on a bus. Free people see the future of possibility where oppressed people see martyrdom as an easy way to escape the horror of everyday life under their tyrannical leadership. See notey, we have already figured out what makes them bad guys. Its living under tyrannical oppression. Free people don't need scapegoats to hate, oppressed ones do. We need to change those peoples lives. WE need to bring them freedom. Of course the Tyrants don't want that, and will fight us to the death. Yup, they need killin! When does the killing stop? I'll tell you when. The killing will stop when all the people in the world live free. Until then, we need to fight and yes die for that freedom because a free world will be a safe and secure world. You CAN'T kill all the bad guys and then say to everyone that's left, "Okay, new game. We're starting over now. Everything is fine." Wait just a minute there notey... weren't you the one complaining, bitching, moaning, and screaming that we need to be going after OBL and AlQuaeda? Wasn't it you who would have rather put more effort into Afghanistan to find OBL because they're the ones that attacked us? So if we wipe out AQ, then what do we say "Okay, new game. We're starting over now. Everything is fine." No, of course we don't. We go out and promote freedom, liberty and human rights throughout the middle east. Soon, democracy will flourish and terrorists support will dry up like the sahara. Where you get the crap that I don't personally know anyone involved is yet another thing I can't imagine. I have more friends, business contacts and family in the middle east than probably anyone else on MOL. Not just Israel, but Iran, Saudi, Dubai, and Qatar. I have freinds in the MCRD and on active duty. By the way, they are all, without exception in full support of Bush and his policies. YOU are the one that doesn't care about anyone you don't know personally. How many Iraqis do you know, How many middle easterners do you know? How many stories of torture and oppression have you heard firsthand? You want to sit in your little cocoon of the peoples republic of Maplewood and act righteous. Too bad its no more than an act. You and yours want to swat flies instead of cleaning out the barn. Don't you dare tell me that I'm not concerned about people determining their own fate. Its all I'm concerned about. The one thing you are somewhat right about is that I do want some sort of vengance for 9/11... but the vengance I want is for the middle east to become free so the likes of OBL will have no support, and nowhere to feel secure, so that one day he will look back and think "boy did I F up. I awoke a sleeping tiger, and now everything I wanted is an impossibility". I want freedom and liberty for all. That would be the ultimate revenge on OBL. All I want in the world is for 9/11 to have been the turning point in the world that changes the landscape from tyranny to freedom. That would be the ultimate justice and revenge. The fact that you want to deny this to millions of people is so disgusting I have no words to describe it. I'm not wrong about liberals... YOU ARE. You make me sick. | ||
| Crazyguggenheim Citizen Username: Crazyguggenheim Post Number: 756 Registered: 2-2002  |
"Its living under tyrannical oppression." Call me crazy, but weren't the 9/11 hijackers from Saudi Arabia? Were they living under tyrannical oppression? | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 1518 Registered: 1-2003 |
Yes. | ||
| common sense Citizen Username: Common_sense Post Number: 31 Registered: 12-2004 |
I thought it was idealogy that was behind 9/11. And blind fealty to any idealogy is a bad idea. | ||
| Crazyguggenheim Citizen Username: Crazyguggenheim Post Number: 757 Registered: 2-2002 |
Call me crazy, but isn't obl from the saudi royal family? I'm having a problem with the oppression part. | ||
| Mustt_mustt Citizen Username: Mustt_mustt Post Number: 245 Registered: 8-2003 |
Would spreading freedom to the middle east also include Palestine? "Democratic elections" take place in two regions under occupation - Palestine under Israel and Iraq under the US. Interesting, very interesting! | ||
| Dave Moderator Username: Dave Post Number: 5127 Registered: 4-1998  |
OBL is not of the Saudi royals. The bin Ladens have connections to the Saudi royals through their construction business and their major contracts to renovate (among other things) the largest mosques in Mecca and Medina. At one point the royals took away OBL's passport because he wanted the Saudis to invade South Yemen and remove its Communist government. They would eventually toss OBL out of the country and he would go to Sudan. Then he was tossed out of Sudan and landed back in Afghanistan. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 1979 Registered: 5-2001 |
Just handing a little back to ya, Mikey. Just like you've been doing to a bunch of us libs here, lately. How'd ya like it? Thanks for typing slowly - I don't have to clean as much spit off the inside of the monitor. By the way, yes, I did say let's go get Osama. He murdered 3,000 of my countrymen and I'd like to see justice served. There's no re-making of a society involved in that effort, and no hypocrisy on my part. Incidentally, I never said you don't know anyone involved in this situation. Your assumption that I did say that is congruent with your apparent desperation or, might I say, clamoring for some kind of Ultimate Enemy to feel righteous about killing. You are floundering in illogic that has failed for thousands of years, and all the bile you can muster toward me or other liberals doesn't help you or your misguided arguments. I can spend all day pointing out how confused you are, but I don't suppose I can change your calcified mind. I just hope that at least my words will make sense to some of the lurkers. There are some bad guys out there that deserve to be rounded up and executed (like Osama), but don't kid yourself that you solve a "problem" like terrorism by killing all the bad guys. They love that. Greatest recruitment tool out there. And I sure don't need my friends and neighbors being sacrificed for that kind of crap. And if anything I have to say makes you sick, well, I'm sorry, but when someone is as wrong as you are, the truth can do that. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 3056 Registered: 8-2003 |
The bad guys love when you kill them. Playing right into their hands. They wanted the US to finally roll on Fallujah (which reportedly did have surprising amounts of voting) where they had set up camp. So...why do they run and hide if when we're killing them we're supposedly doing what they want us to do? Who told you that was true, notehead? The terrorists, or some political leader who of course only has your best interests at heart? | ||
| Albatross Citizen Username: Albatross Post Number: 469 Registered: 9-2004  |
"Free people don't sponsor terror." The Ku Klux Klan serves as a counterexample. People who bomb churches and clinics serve as counterexamples. How do any of us know what actually motivates these people? Tyrannical oppression certainly creates unrest and anger, but why is that anger channeled at the US and not against the oppressor? It could be said that fear of retribution prevents it, but why do they not fear US retribution just as much, especially after US intent to strike against these people has been made clear? Could they see the US as a new oppressor? And why does insurgency persist after the aggressor has been deposed? My point is, I don't think anyone knows exactly what the agenda of these people is. I don't purport to know. I will say that I don't think the current attitude of the U.S. is helpful in stopping insurgency. If the attitude is, 'Bring 'em on' with a side helping of, 'We will bring these terrorists to justice,' it sends a message that the U.S. is unwilling to actually listen to opposition. I'm aware that this is not necessarily the case, but what do they see? All they see is troops with a commander that seems determined to kill them. Has anybody asked these groups / people what they want? Has the President ever said, "Look, send a few unarmed men, we'll sit down and talk about what you'd like to have happen?" Who knows? Maybe some of them will decide that they can work with the U.S. and the Iraqi government, because they have expressed a desire to cooperate. Maybe some will decide that it's better to be a loyal, viable opposition than to be a hostile, dead one? Convince religious groups that their faith is not in jeopardy; convince nationalist groups that we are not permanant residents. Point to our principles of self-determination as evidence. Heck, tell them that the faster they cooperate, the faster we leave. Change it from "Are you with us or against us?" to "Are you willing to work with us?" Then actually listen and respect what they have to say. I admit, this is somewhat idealist. Some, maybe all of them, will tell us to go to hell. Then there's not much we can do but move on as before. But consider this: isn't it worth a shot? In Afghanistan, didn't we help get the warlords together to talk about what they wanted? Why can't it at least be attempted here? If even one group decides to lay down arms, we will have done a service to both Iraq and the troops in harm's way. And maybe we shorten the battle and come closer to winning the war. Think about it. |
