|
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the teeth on al-Qaida Saddamn links
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 13:16:27 -0400, Dave Hall wrote:
Much snipped Maybe you're right. We should probably just develop a genetic virus that kills only arabs. Is that high enough a standard for you? This was the subject of a novel I read a few months ago. Don't remember the name, but the premise was the same. John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in theteeth on al-Qaida Saddamn links
John H wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 13:16:27 -0400, Dave Hall wrote: Much snipped Maybe you're right. We should probably just develop a genetic virus that kills only arabs. Is that high enough a standard for you? This was the subject of a novel I read a few months ago. Don't remember the name, but the premise was the same. John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! Gosh, Herring, I had no idea Classic Comix had expanded its coverage. |
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the teeth on al-Qaida Saddamn links
|
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 07:40:40 -0400, Dave Hall wrote:
You make a good point here. We probably should re-evauate our tactics. Tanks and bombs probably aren't the answer. But some form of force is. Before we can do that though, we have to loosen up on the idea that covert operations are "sneaky" or "underhanded". Not underhanded, just incredibly stupid. How do you think Saddam came to power in the first place? http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/f...s98/saddam.htm Once Iraq becomes stable and the people taste what it's like to be self governing, I can't see why they would prefer to be oppressed by a fanatical fundamentalist religious fanatic. The terrorists are running scared. They know as well as we do, that once their people taste freedom, there will be no turning back, and their power base will evaporate. And when Iran was once a democracy? What happened? http://www.angelfire.com/home/iran/1953coup.html We support a cadre of ruthless dictators as long as they share our interests. Like who? Too numerous to name here, so a link: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US...dictators.html At the same time we talk about democracy and free elections. The hypocracy is so shameful as to render our proclamations of freedom utter nonsense. We would prefer that all dictatorships go away and be replaced by democratic governments. Unfortunately we don't have the right to force this on people unless (as in the case in Iraq) that government poses a potential threat to world stability and our safety. If the oppressive dictatorship is relatively benign (They aren't researching WMD, killing thousands of it's own citizens, or invading a neighboring country) When did our foreign policy change? http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Bl...Hope_page.html |
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the teeth on al-Qaida Saddamn links
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 11:01:46 -0400, mono sect wrote: Looking at these numbers helps one to understand the wisdom of our forefathers in creating the Electoral College system. The difference in the vote count in just New York City might have elected Al Gore, in a popular vote only system. http://www.rosecity.net/al_gore/election_map.html There's considerable blue on that map. If land could vote, but it can't, so what's your point? Inner city dwellers have are disproportionately Democrat and may be more inclined to vote democrat due to being poor or an immigent. Then there is Democrat run Preciencts that cannot account for missing ballots or why a superviser was found with a voting machine in the trunk of her car! What's my point? Inner city dwellers do not represent America, nor should their vote have more influence than rural area's There were several reasons our founding fathers set up the Electoral College. One of them was to avoid partisan politics. http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf |
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 07:33:59 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote: If that's what we're left with, and if in terms of practicality, we kill lots of innocent civilians, too, we're not demonstrating much difference between us and those we go after. The difference is we don't kill people for no reason. Thus, you enunciate the basic flaw in your logic and thinking. You assume that the terrorists who were involved in 9-11 "killed people for no reason." That is not correct. The terrorists did (and do) kill for a reason or reasons. That reason may not be justifed and rational to you or me, but I assure you, it is to them. They have an agenda. They have demands. But to kill innocent people to get our attention to those demands is, IMHO barbaric and excessive. Common sense should also tell you that if we let things like 9/11 give them the attention that they demand, that it only validates their methods, and empowers others to do the same thing. Further, we do kill people for no reason, or at least, no acceptable reason. If you think otherwise, you are very, very naive. Cite examples please. We didn't fly airplanes into tall buildings to make a political point. We don't have to; we have missiles and bombs we can fire off or drop from altitude. When have we ever fired missiles or dropped bombs to make the world sit up and take notice to our political agenda? If the terrorists refuse to follow the terms of war as defined by the Geneva convention, then they should be the ones responsible for the lives of the people that they willingly place in harm's way. Well, that's certainly an easy way out for us and a nice rationalization. What other alternative is there? Either we both play by the same rules or one of us is at a serious tactical disadvantage. What your kind of thinking leads to is...more killing...on both sides. The difference is, when we're done killing the enemy and making them cry "uncle" the killing will stop. They will not stop killing until they meet their objectives, which is the extermination of "infidels". If we give in (weakness) to their demands, they will only make more. It's so unfortunate we don't seem to have reliable intel or even reliable Iraqis on the ground in their country, eh? I wouldn't know, and neither do you. Neither one of us has a "need to know". Dave Yeah, we do. We may not need to know "the intel," but we sure as hell need to know if the intel our supposed leaders get is reliable and, if it is, whether they pay attention to it, or whether they pursue an idiotic political agenda in spite of reliable intel. Just think what might have happened if we have the mass media network, the internet, and satellite technology during WWII. There would 've been the same uninformed civilian armchair quarterbacking. Sometimes, we (think we) know too much. Maybe we should just let the people involved do their jobs instead of throwing out constant criticism and making false or inaccurate conjectures which do nothing by undermine our ability. You know, sort of like the idiotic political agenda and warmongering the Bush administration is pursuing. When you don't know all the facts, and fall victim to the biased ramblings of opposing sides with their own agendas, it's not hard to come to that conclusion. Dave |
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 07:37:07 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote: Dave Hall wrote: On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 14:42:10 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: Dave Hall wrote: On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 11:41:56 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: Am I a neocon because I looked in a M-W dictionary? John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! No, you are a neocon because you are a rigid, mindless fool who accepts virtually every line of bull**** the neocons feed you. As opposed to you, a rigid mindless fool who accepts virtually every line of bull**** the liberals and emotionally driven writer hacks feed you? That's simply not true, Dave. I have different opinions on a number of significant issues with the presumed Democratic standard=bearer and with the true liberals in my party. Anyone can say that. No one is 100% in lock step with anyone's political party. As for the emotionally driven "writer hacks," I suspect you are just jealous, as your writing skills are rudimentary. I am hardly "jealous". I at least have the integrity to report facts, Dave, you wouldn't know a fact if it bit you on the ass. Really? I'm not the one cutting and pasting biased political tripe and passing it off as fact. Your simple-minded, right-wing pronouncements from "on the mount" are the epitome of silliness. Only because you are so rigid in your thinking that you refuse to consider the other side. The difference is that I can cite logical, economical, and psychological reasoning to support my side. All you can do is offer up even more cut and paste vitriol laced opinions from other morally bankrupt and intellectually dishonest writer hacks. Dave |
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the
Harry,
Keep up the good work, you have Dave in the corner. I think I love you, you are so witty and kewl, not stupid and ignorant like the right wing borg that pollute this ng. "Dave Hall" wrote in message ... On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 07:33:59 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: If that's what we're left with, and if in terms of practicality, we kill lots of innocent civilians, too, we're not demonstrating much difference between us and those we go after. The difference is we don't kill people for no reason. Thus, you enunciate the basic flaw in your logic and thinking. You assume that the terrorists who were involved in 9-11 "killed people for no reason." That is not correct. The terrorists did (and do) kill for a reason or reasons. That reason may not be justifed and rational to you or me, but I assure you, it is to them. They have an agenda. They have demands. But to kill innocent people to get our attention to those demands is, IMHO barbaric and excessive. Common sense should also tell you that if we let things like 9/11 give them the attention that they demand, that it only validates their methods, and empowers others to do the same thing. Further, we do kill people for no reason, or at least, no acceptable reason. If you think otherwise, you are very, very naive. Cite examples please. We didn't fly airplanes into tall buildings to make a political point. We don't have to; we have missiles and bombs we can fire off or drop from altitude. When have we ever fired missiles or dropped bombs to make the world sit up and take notice to our political agenda? If the terrorists refuse to follow the terms of war as defined by the Geneva convention, then they should be the ones responsible for the lives of the people that they willingly place in harm's way. Well, that's certainly an easy way out for us and a nice rationalization. What other alternative is there? Either we both play by the same rules or one of us is at a serious tactical disadvantage. What your kind of thinking leads to is...more killing...on both sides. The difference is, when we're done killing the enemy and making them cry "uncle" the killing will stop. They will not stop killing until they meet their objectives, which is the extermination of "infidels". If we give in (weakness) to their demands, they will only make more. It's so unfortunate we don't seem to have reliable intel or even reliable Iraqis on the ground in their country, eh? I wouldn't know, and neither do you. Neither one of us has a "need to know". Dave Yeah, we do. We may not need to know "the intel," but we sure as hell need to know if the intel our supposed leaders get is reliable and, if it is, whether they pay attention to it, or whether they pursue an idiotic political agenda in spite of reliable intel. Just think what might have happened if we have the mass media network, the internet, and satellite technology during WWII. There would 've been the same uninformed civilian armchair quarterbacking. Sometimes, we (think we) know too much. Maybe we should just let the people involved do their jobs instead of throwing out constant criticism and making false or inaccurate conjectures which do nothing by undermine our ability. You know, sort of like the idiotic political agenda and warmongering the Bush administration is pursuing. When you don't know all the facts, and fall victim to the biased ramblings of opposing sides with their own agendas, it's not hard to come to that conclusion. Dave |
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 12:08:27 -0400, thunder
wrote: On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 07:40:40 -0400, Dave Hall wrote: You make a good point here. We probably should re-evauate our tactics. Tanks and bombs probably aren't the answer. But some form of force is. Before we can do that though, we have to loosen up on the idea that covert operations are "sneaky" or "underhanded". Not underhanded, just incredibly stupid. How do you think Saddam came to power in the first place? http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/f...s98/saddam.htm Well, we have people here opposed to overt military action. The alternative is covert military action. Once Iraq becomes stable and the people taste what it's like to be self governing, I can't see why they would prefer to be oppressed by a fanatical fundamentalist religious fanatic. The terrorists are running scared. They know as well as we do, that once their people taste freedom, there will be no turning back, and their power base will evaporate. And when Iran was once a democracy? What happened? When you have a society which does not allow the right to own arms or some other means to defend itself, it can easily be taken over by an ambitious person with charisma, and the inside track to the military. Many people can also be swayed to support someone by the promises of a better life. Once that person seizes power, they are free to oppress the people, establish a police state and rule by fear and intimidation http://www.angelfire.com/home/iran/1953coup.html We support a cadre of ruthless dictators as long as they share our interests. Like who? Too numerous to name here, so a link: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US...dictators.html At the same time we talk about democracy and free elections. The hypocracy is so shameful as to render our proclamations of freedom utter nonsense. We would prefer that all dictatorships go away and be replaced by democratic governments. Unfortunately we don't have the right to force this on people unless (as in the case in Iraq) that government poses a potential threat to world stability and our safety. If the oppressive dictatorship is relatively benign (They aren't researching WMD, killing thousands of it's own citizens, or invading a neighboring country) When did our foreign policy change? http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Bl...Hope_page.html This site features the writing of someone who is so obviously left biased that their objectivity is highly questionable. The author borders on paranoid schizophrenia, as he tried to paint the picture of the U.S. government looking for imaginary communists under every stone in every country. Communism WAS a legitimate threat. The human rights and economic freedoms of the people under those rules were significantl;y less than under our system of freedom and an open economy. While we have historically adopted an "enemy of my enemy is my friend" philosophy with regard to foreign relations, which has backfired in our face (Iraq for example) no country in the world has done more to advance the ideals of freedom and self determination than the U.S. I challenge you to find any FACTUAL accounts to the contrary. The democratic free market model is far superior to a socialist one, no matter what Mr. Blum seems to think. Dave |
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the
Dave Hall wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 07:33:59 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: If that's what we're left with, and if in terms of practicality, we kill lots of innocent civilians, too, we're not demonstrating much difference between us and those we go after. The difference is we don't kill people for no reason. Thus, you enunciate the basic flaw in your logic and thinking. You assume that the terrorists who were involved in 9-11 "killed people for no reason." That is not correct. The terrorists did (and do) kill for a reason or reasons. That reason may not be justifed and rational to you or me, but I assure you, it is to them. They have an agenda. They have demands. But to kill innocent people to get our attention to those demands is, IMHO barbaric and excessive. Common sense should also tell you that if we let things like 9/11 give them the attention that they demand, that it only validates their methods, and empowers others to do the same thing. Further, we do kill people for no reason, or at least, no acceptable reason. If you think otherwise, you are very, very naive. Cite examples please. We didn't fly airplanes into tall buildings to make a political point. We don't have to; we have missiles and bombs we can fire off or drop from altitude. When have we ever fired missiles or dropped bombs to make the world sit up and take notice to our political agenda? If the terrorists refuse to follow the terms of war as defined by the Geneva convention, then they should be the ones responsible for the lives of the people that they willingly place in harm's way. Well, that's certainly an easy way out for us and a nice rationalization. What other alternative is there? Either we both play by the same rules or one of us is at a serious tactical disadvantage. What your kind of thinking leads to is...more killing...on both sides. The difference is, when we're done killing the enemy and making them cry "uncle" the killing will stop. They will not stop killing until they meet their objectives, which is the extermination of "infidels". If we give in (weakness) to their demands, they will only make more. It's so unfortunate we don't seem to have reliable intel or even reliable Iraqis on the ground in their country, eh? I wouldn't know, and neither do you. Neither one of us has a "need to know". Dave Yeah, we do. We may not need to know "the intel," but we sure as hell need to know if the intel our supposed leaders get is reliable and, if it is, whether they pay attention to it, or whether they pursue an idiotic political agenda in spite of reliable intel. Just think what might have happened if we have the mass media network, the internet, and satellite technology during WWII. There would 've been the same uninformed civilian armchair quarterbacking. Sometimes, we (think we) know too much. Maybe we should just let the people involved do their jobs instead of throwing out constant criticism and making false or inaccurate conjectures which do nothing by undermine our ability. Are you actually advocating that we should simply sit back and allow the idiots and lunatics in the Bush Administration "carry on" with their insane agenda without questioning or criticizing them? You're in a real time warp here, Dave...you would have preferred to live in the old Soviet Union. One of the basic problems of the Bush Administration is that it does not know how to do its job. It is incompetent. |
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the
Dave Hall wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 07:37:07 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: Dave Hall wrote: On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 14:42:10 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: Dave Hall wrote: On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 11:41:56 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: Am I a neocon because I looked in a M-W dictionary? John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! No, you are a neocon because you are a rigid, mindless fool who accepts virtually every line of bull**** the neocons feed you. As opposed to you, a rigid mindless fool who accepts virtually every line of bull**** the liberals and emotionally driven writer hacks feed you? That's simply not true, Dave. I have different opinions on a number of significant issues with the presumed Democratic standard=bearer and with the true liberals in my party. Anyone can say that. No one is 100% in lock step with anyone's political party. As for the emotionally driven "writer hacks," I suspect you are just jealous, as your writing skills are rudimentary. I am hardly "jealous". I at least have the integrity to report facts, Dave, you wouldn't know a fact if it bit you on the ass. Really? I'm not the one cutting and pasting biased political tripe and passing it off as fact. Your simple-minded, right-wing pronouncements from "on the mount" are the epitome of silliness. Only because you are so rigid in your thinking that you refuse to consider the other side. The difference is that I can cite logical, economical, and psychological reasoning to support my side. In your mind, perhaps. The posts of yours you tout are bizarre. |
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the teeth on al-Qaida Saddamn links
http://maddox.xmission.com/dip****.html
John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in theteeth on al-Qaida Saddamn links
John H wrote:
http://maddox.xmission.com/dip****.html John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! It seems appropriate that Herring, our newsgroup defender of military screw-ups, should be in charge of the "dip****" webpage. |
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 13:16:15 -0400, Dave Hall wrote:
Well, we have people here opposed to overt military action. The alternative is covert military action. Those are the only two alternatives? How about dealing with third world countries as we deal with first world countries? When you have a society which does not allow the right to own arms or some other means to defend itself, it can easily be taken over by an ambitious person with charisma, and the inside track to the military. Many people can also be swayed to support someone by the promises of a better life. Once that person seizes power, they are free to oppress the people, establish a police state and rule by fear and intimidation Gun ownership in many of the countries we are talking about, especially Arab countries, is pervasive. It hasn't helped them prevent tyrants. We support a cadre of ruthless dictators as long as they share our interests. Like who? http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US...dictators.html As you didn't like my link, I'll just name a few. Somoza, Pinochet, Trujillo, Diem, the Shah of Iran, Saddam, Noriega, Ferdinand Marcos, Batista, Francois & Jean Claude Duvalier, Francisco Franco, George Papadopoulas, Pol Pot, . . . This site features the writing of someone who is so obviously left biased that their objectivity is highly questionable. The author borders on paranoid schizophrenia, as he tried to paint the picture of the U.S. government looking for imaginary communists under every stone in every country. Please, Blum could be a looney tune. It wouldn't change a factual list of CIA interventions. Communism WAS a legitimate threat. The human rights and economic freedoms of the people under those rules were significantl;y less than under our system of freedom and an open economy. Many of our interventions, predate communism. http://www2.truman.edu/~marc/resourc...rventions.html The democratic free market model is far superior to a socialist one, no matter what Mr. Blum seems to think. I see part of your problem. You are confusing a political system with an economic system. Very easy to do, hell the CIA does it all the time. What do you think? Was Chile better off under a democratically elected Allende or a US imposed tyrant Pinochet? http://www-personal.umich.edu/~lorma.../soa/chile.htm http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/...8/nsaebb8i.htm |
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the
thunder wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 13:16:15 -0400, Dave Hall wrote: Well, we have people here opposed to overt military action. The alternative is covert military action. Those are the only two alternatives? How about dealing with third world countries as we deal with first world countries? Don't confuse Dave; he is unaware there are possibilities beyond black or white. |
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the
How does this solution work any better than what we've done so far?
Dave It addresses the reality that we were not attacked by a country on September 11th, but by a gang of criminal thugs. If every time we get attacked by a gang of cirminal thugs we respond by invading and occupying yet another country, how does that even begin to address the problem? As you said, the thugs will just go somewhere else that we're not (currently) attacking. Even Bush has said "We cannot prove a connection between Saddam Hussein and the 9-11 attacks", yet our invasion of Iraq is supposed to be this brilliant response to the terrorist attacks on America. ??? We're defending America against future attacks by letting the culprits run free while we dink around with a politically motivated side show? Nah. |
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the
"Gould 0738" wrote in message ... How does this solution work any better than what we've done so far? Dave It addresses the reality that we were not attacked by a country on September 11th, but by a gang of criminal thugs. If every time we get attacked by a gang of cirminal thugs we respond by invading and occupying yet another country, how does that even begin to address the problem? As you said, the thugs will just go somewhere else that we're not (currently) attacking. Even Bush has said "We cannot prove a connection between Saddam Hussein and the 9-11 attacks", yet our invasion of Iraq is supposed to be this brilliant response to the terrorist attacks on America. ??? We're defending America against future attacks by letting the culprits run free while we dink around with a politically motivated side show? Nah. Chuck, you need to use logic and foresight to see what is happening in the mid-east. Your view is to small which limits your ability to see the big picture. |
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the
In the interest of never under estimating or minimizing the capabilities of
your opponents...This is very bad thinking. They are not criminal thugs. They are members of a relegious group that believes in what they do. They believe that God will reward them for this belief and for the actions they take in forwarding this goal. The requirement on us is to change their believes or annihilate them. Really is not much middle ground. I would think that seizing the oil fields and holy sites in Saudia Arabia would be a start. Perhaps combined with the de-nuclearization of Pakistan and Iran. I don't suggest we invade - simply annihilate if an acceptable accomodation is not found. We continue to play with adversaries who would in good faith remove an American City or two to prove their point. I suggest that removing all Islamic nuclear capability is simply good sense. Along the way remove the nuclear capability of North Korea and consider whether or not we should do the same to India. I see no reason why we allow nuclear capability in potentially unfriendly hands. No I do not want to go after the Chinese or the Russians...then again their relegious beliefs are not likely to lead to attacks on America. It hurts me to turn into a warmonger...but I can see no other path that is not littered with the remains of dead American Cities. Jim "Gould 0738" wrote in message ... How does this solution work any better than what we've done so far? Dave It addresses the reality that we were not attacked by a country on September 11th, but by a gang of criminal thugs. If every time we get attacked by a gang of cirminal thugs we respond by invading and occupying yet another country, how does that even begin to address the problem? As you said, the thugs will just go somewhere else that we're not (currently) attacking. Even Bush has said "We cannot prove a connection between Saddam Hussein and the 9-11 attacks", yet our invasion of Iraq is supposed to be this brilliant response to the terrorist attacks on America. ??? We're defending America against future attacks by letting the culprits run free while we dink around with a politically motivated side show? Nah. |
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the
Chuck, you need to use logic and foresight to see what is happening in the
mid-east. Your view is to small which limits your ability to see the big picture. Jesse James and company rode out of Missouri. If every time they held up a bank, the government declared martial law in first Kansas, then Nebraska, then Oklahoma, etc etc etc......how would that be any different than what we're doing/ planning to do now? Certainly would have never caught the James/Younger Gang (many of whom learned you don't screw around with a Minnesota farmer's money) Foreign governments may not be our friends, but neither is any foreign government the enemy that brazenly and criminally attacked us. We need to put down the dog proven to be rabid first.....and then if we need to look at other dogs that could possibly be infected too, we should. I'm all for getting those criminal *******s. Absolutely. Work within or outside the confines of international law to get it done. Any country worth a dinkle would help us out or at least stand back and let us bring these *******s to death or trial. No **** ant country would dare protest us going in to extract bin Ladin, and our allies would either help or keep silent. Who would want to side with Osama bin Ladin? Don't forget that 90% of the country was rootin' for GWB when he said he was out to get OBL, "dead or alive". Too bad we lost focus. If our current foreign policy is an effective response to 9-11, the majority of people cannot see just how. (Bush can't say "There is no connection" one month, and then say "We're avenging the 9-11 massacre" the next). If our current foreing policy is not a direct respoinse to 9-11, we have every right in the world to ask why it isn't. Solving terorism in general is no higher than item "B", if that's what the justification for Iraq etc is. Item "A" should be bringing down the ******* that is already attacking us *now*. |
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the
"Gould 0738" wrote in message ... Chuck, you need to use logic and foresight to see what is happening in the mid-east. Your view is to small which limits your ability to see the big picture. Jesse James and company rode out of Missouri. If every time they held up a bank, the government declared martial law in first Kansas, then Nebraska, then Oklahoma, etc etc etc......how would that be any different than what we're doing/ planning to do now? Certainly would have never caught the James/Younger Gang (many of whom learned you don't screw around with a Minnesota farmer's money) Foreign governments may not be our friends, but neither is any foreign government the enemy that brazenly and criminally attacked us. We need to put down the dog proven to be rabid first.....and then if we need to look at other dogs that could possibly be infected too, we should. All foriegn governments are our enemy. At times we treat them like friends. I'm all for getting those criminal *******s. Absolutely. Work within or outside the confines of international law to get it done. Any country worth a dinkle would help us out or at least stand back and let us bring these *******s to death or trial. No **** ant country would dare protest us going in to extract bin Ladin, and our allies would either help or keep silent. Who would want to side with Osama bin Ladin? Crime is a term used in a civil socitety to describe unwanted behavior. In uncivilized societies there is no crime there is only survival. Don't forget that 90% of the country was rootin' for GWB when he said he was out to get OBL, "dead or alive". Too bad we lost focus. Lost focus? We changed our plans to fit the mission. What purpose would it serve to kill OBL now? If our current foreign policy is an effective response to 9-11, the majority of people cannot see just how. (Bush can't say "There is no connection" one month, and then say "We're avenging the 9-11 massacre" the next). If our current foreing policy is not a direct respoinse to 9-11, we have every right in the world to ask why it isn't. We are fighting the terrorist's, enemies of the US, on their soil rather than on our own soil. How would you like a homicide bomber to walk into your local pizza parlor and blow the place up? Solving terorism in general is no higher than item "B", if that's what the justification for Iraq etc is. Item "A" should be bringing down the ******* that is already attacking us *now*. All in good time. As I said before, take off the blinders and try to see the big picture. Look ten, twenty or even fifty years into the future and visualize what you want the world to look like and then start making it happen. I want a world where my children and grandchildren are safe from harm. Letting the terrorists take over won't provide a safe future. |
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 13:21:40 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote: Dave Hall wrote: On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 07:33:59 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: If that's what we're left with, and if in terms of practicality, we kill lots of innocent civilians, too, we're not demonstrating much difference between us and those we go after. The difference is we don't kill people for no reason. Thus, you enunciate the basic flaw in your logic and thinking. You assume that the terrorists who were involved in 9-11 "killed people for no reason." That is not correct. The terrorists did (and do) kill for a reason or reasons. That reason may not be justifed and rational to you or me, but I assure you, it is to them. They have an agenda. They have demands. But to kill innocent people to get our attention to those demands is, IMHO barbaric and excessive. Common sense should also tell you that if we let things like 9/11 give them the attention that they demand, that it only validates their methods, and empowers others to do the same thing. Further, we do kill people for no reason, or at least, no acceptable reason. If you think otherwise, you are very, very naive. Cite examples please. We didn't fly airplanes into tall buildings to make a political point. We don't have to; we have missiles and bombs we can fire off or drop from altitude. When have we ever fired missiles or dropped bombs to make the world sit up and take notice to our political agenda? If the terrorists refuse to follow the terms of war as defined by the Geneva convention, then they should be the ones responsible for the lives of the people that they willingly place in harm's way. Well, that's certainly an easy way out for us and a nice rationalization. What other alternative is there? Either we both play by the same rules or one of us is at a serious tactical disadvantage. What your kind of thinking leads to is...more killing...on both sides. The difference is, when we're done killing the enemy and making them cry "uncle" the killing will stop. They will not stop killing until they meet their objectives, which is the extermination of "infidels". If we give in (weakness) to their demands, they will only make more. It's so unfortunate we don't seem to have reliable intel or even reliable Iraqis on the ground in their country, eh? I wouldn't know, and neither do you. Neither one of us has a "need to know". Dave Yeah, we do. We may not need to know "the intel," but we sure as hell need to know if the intel our supposed leaders get is reliable and, if it is, whether they pay attention to it, or whether they pursue an idiotic political agenda in spite of reliable intel. Just think what might have happened if we have the mass media network, the internet, and satellite technology during WWII. There would 've been the same uninformed civilian armchair quarterbacking. Sometimes, we (think we) know too much. Maybe we should just let the people involved do their jobs instead of throwing out constant criticism and making false or inaccurate conjectures which do nothing by undermine our ability. Are you actually advocating that we should simply sit back and allow the idiots and lunatics in the Bush Administration "carry on" with their insane agenda without questioning or criticizing them? You're in a real time warp here, Dave...you would have preferred to live in the old Soviet Union. No, actually the America of the 1940's. One of the basic problems of the Bush Administration is that it does not know how to do its job. It is incompetent. You keep saying that, but to date cannot offer up anything more substantive that you own opinion to support that allegation. And guess what, your opinion plus $.50 won't even get you a cheap cup of coffee....... Dave |
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the
|
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the
Dave Hall wrote:
Who is letting anyone run free? Just because the news is dominated by liberals digging up more and more mud to sling at Bush (instead of condemning our enemies), and concentrating on what's going wrong in Iraq, that doesn't mean that the search for Al Qaeda and OBL is not still a priority. We keep taking out key members every couple of weeks. But those stories appear as a quick blip on the radar and are quickly overshadowed by another round of pictures of so called "abuse" in Iraqi prisons, or some other disgruntled former government official tries to earn his 15 minutes of fame by slinging mud at the administration. Dave Wow...not only have you taken a big bite of the Bush Bull**** apple, you've eaten the whole damned thing, right down to the core. Yessir, things are wonderful in Iraq, we've got less terrorism in the world as a result of the Bush Bull****, and everyone is safer. And if you believe any of that, you've been lobotomized...several times. |
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the
"Gould 0738" wrote in message ... How does this solution work any better than what we've done so far? Dave It addresses the reality that we were not attacked by a country on September 11th, but by a gang of criminal thugs. If every time we get attacked by a gang of cirminal thugs we respond by invading and occupying yet another country, how does that even begin to address the problem? As you said, the thugs will just go somewhere else that we're not (currently) attacking. No other country would be stupid enough to grant them amnesty the way Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan have. |
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the
"Jim Donohue" wrote in message news:55MDc.7374$Yu.2812@fed1read04... In the interest of never under estimating or minimizing the capabilities of your opponents...This is very bad thinking. They are not criminal thugs. They are members of a relegious group that believes in what they do. They believe that God will reward them for this belief and for the actions they take in forwarding this goal. The requirement on us is to change their believes or annihilate them. Really is not much middle ground. I would think that seizing the oil fields and holy sites in Saudia Arabia would be a start. Perhaps combined with the de-nuclearization of Pakistan and Iran. I don't suggest we invade - simply annihilate if an acceptable accomodation is not found. We continue to play with adversaries who would in good faith remove an American City or two to prove their point. I suggest that removing all Islamic nuclear capability is simply good sense. Along the way remove the nuclear capability of North Korea and consider whether or not we should do the same to India. I see no reason why we allow nuclear capability in potentially unfriendly hands. No I do not want to go after the Chinese or the Russians...then again their relegious beliefs are not likely to lead to attacks on America. It hurts me to turn into a warmonger...but I can see no other path that is not littered with the remains of dead American Cities. Good post, Jim. |
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 07:39:49 -0400, Bert Robbins wrote:
All foriegn governments are our enemy. At times we treat them like friends. I sometimes think, all governments are our enemy. ;-) Lost focus? We changed our plans to fit the mission. What purpose would it serve to kill OBL now? Bin Laden was directly responsible for the deaths of 3000 Americans on American soil. In my mind, that's enough to make him the number one priority then, now, and forever. All in good time. As I said before, take off the blinders and try to see the big picture. Look ten, twenty or even fifty years into the future and visualize what you want the world to look like and then start making it happen. I want a world where my children and grandchildren are safe from harm. Letting the terrorists take over won't provide a safe future. Unless we establish energy independence, a safe future just isn't going to happen. *Part* of our middle east strategy is to control the flow of oil, I would suggest that starving the burgeoning economy of say, China, isn't a guarantee of a safe future. http://www.motherjones.com/news/feat...ma_273_01.html |
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the
Lost focus? We changed our plans to fit the mission. What purpose would it
serve to kill OBL now? Effectively prevents that particular criminal terrorist ******* from striking again. We are fighting the terrorist's, enemies of the US, on their soil rather than on our own soil. How would you like a homicide bomber to walk into your local pizza parlor and blow the place up? Do I get to pick the pizza joint? (kidding, of course) I hear this all the time. It's binary crock. As if fighting against the US in Iraq and sending a few dozen individuals to this country to blow up pizza parlors and shopping malls, or fly airplanes into buildings can't happen simultaneously. In fact, our forcible intrusion into the Middle East has most likely *increased* rather than decreased the liklihood of more attacks in the US. True enough, the individuals we kill in Iraq won't be coming here anytime soon......but their criminal terrorist ******* buddies will be all the more inspired to do so. Look ten, twenty or even fifty years into the future and visualize what you want the world to look like and then start making it happen. I want a world where my children and grandchildren are safe from harm. As we all do. But when your house is on fire, you put it out first before you begin planning a major remodel cycle that will take 20 or 50 years. Question: If our focus on Iraq isn't serving the best interests of the terrorists, (as I believe it is), why are they sacrificing the people required to keep the pot just barely boiling there? We are likely to find out, to our profound dismay, that all the terrorists are *not* moving to Iraq for the purpose of taking on the American military with their Rube Goldberg bombs and small arms. |
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the
No other country would be stupid enough to grant them amnesty the way Iraq,
Iran, and Afghanistan have. Except Jordan, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Indonesia, Pakistan etc etc etc we don't grant amnesty to criminals in the US, either. Last I checked, we still have one heck of a lot of them living here. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:47 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com