| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the
Let's think about the choices we have. You could be:
A. With us, in that you support the elimination of world-wide terrorism by whatever means necessary. B. Against us, which means that you feel that active terrorist groups killing innocent civilians is acceptable behavior in a civilized world. C. Neutral. You want to hide your head in the sand and pretend the problem will fix itself. So which are you? Dave I'm stunned. Not one of the choices you offered. According to what you just wrote: If I am not in favor of carpet bombing the entire middle East with thermo-nuclear devices (an example of "any means neccessary" to eliminate terrorism), then my only other choice is to declare that active terror groups killing innocent civilians........(as opposed to high tech super powers with thermo nuclear bombs killing innocent civilians)......is absolutely OK. Doesn't work for me. I'm in favor of capturing or killing the individual criminal *******s involved in terrorist activities, by any reasonable means that won't result in our creating far more innocent civilian casualties than the terrorists have already. I'm not in favor of invading our way through a check list of third world countries under the guise of "fighting terrorism". (But I bet you already knew that) Yes, I know that neocons are all about limiting choices. But you guys have a ways to go in this country before you can presume to tell me how I must think, (choice A or choice B). |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the
|
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the
Dave Hall wrote:
I would not want to carpet bomb innocents either. But when the terrorists are so gutless as to hide behind them as human shields, what choice would we have? Some other choice, perhaps? By oozing down to the level of the terrorists (killing innocent civilians), we're no better than they are, and we certainly cannot claim any higher moral ground. 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. It's so unfortunate we don't seem to have reliable intel or even reliable Iraqis on the ground in their country, eh? |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 14:08:30 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote: Dave Hall wrote: I would not want to carpet bomb innocents either. But when the terrorists are so gutless as to hide behind them as human shields, what choice would we have? Some other choice, perhaps? I'm all ears. Tell me what that choice is. By oozing down to the level of the terrorists (killing innocent civilians), we're no better than they are, and we certainly cannot claim any higher moral ground. We don't need to. We only need to win. 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. We didn't fly airplanes into tall buildings to make a political point. 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. We still have the right to pursue the enemy. What signal does that send to the enemy if we cease pursuing them if they hide in civilian areas? 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 |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the
Very good Chuck! That sounds like the perfect plan. Now all we need to
do is call the Starship Enterprise and have them scan the plant for the DNA signatures of all the terrorists so that we can beam them all into a detention cell on some outer world controlled by the Klingons. Or, failing that, we can occupy every country where there ever was, is, or might someday be a terrorist. To make sure we get them all, we need to kill off anybody we even suspect, in the least, might have terrorist tendencies. Probably no more practical than the Starship Enterprise. Wake up! We haven't yet found OBL, his top henchmen, or the Iraqi insurgents. The terrorists hide in countries that will not allow us in to search for them (Pakistan). How do you resolve this? If there are countries who support the terrorists either overtly or covertly, then how do we apprehend them? Bush: Hello, General XYPHAHUANG? General X: Yes, Mr President! My closest friend and honored ally! How are Laura and the twin Bushes? Bush: Fine, general. Seems we have a small problem, however. A group of criminal terrorists thugs blew up a bunch of stuff here in the US and killed a helluva lot of innocent folks. Turns out these criminals are hiding in your country. General X: Pajukistan does not support terrorism! Bush: Of course not, and I'm glad to hear you say that. This is a courtesy call to let you know that we will be sending a few thousand Army Rangers and Navy Seals into your country by the end of this week. General X: You mean you are going to invade us? What about the treaty? Bush: Invade, shamde. This is a law enforcement action. We don't want to acquire any territory, we don't want to topple your government, we want to avoid civilian causalties. This is your opportunity to *invite* us to search for these *******s. General X: And if I don't choose to invite you? Bush: Well, in that case we're coming anyway and this is a courtesy call to let you know to expect us. General X: This will pizz off my people! I'll be lucky to remain in power! You can't do this! Don't forget, we've got a nuclear bomb! Bush: Yes, we can. And we will. There's no doubt that you do not want to start a nuclear war with the United States. The good news is, you won't need to. You do have an alternative to our presence, of course. Deliver Osama bin Ladin or his verifiable corpse to your border within 96 hours. If you can find him, do so. If you can't we're coming to "help" you. ************** So, that's how. In my opinion. Beats hell out of calling the Starship Enterprise or killing every Muslim on the face of the earth, anyway. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the
|
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
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*. |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
