Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Appeasement: Why The US Is In Deep Trouble  
User currently offlineMatt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 47
Posted (8 years 2 months 11 hours ago) and read 4505 times:

This guy has hit the nail sqaurely on the head.

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/06/defend.html

and my favorite line:

"I know of no instances where appeasement, such as the current Western modus operandi, has borne fruit."

177 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 2 months 11 hours ago) and read 4500 times:

Who is this lunatic - is he seriously advocating turning the Middle East into a bubbling sheet of glass, killing a billion people, as a way of ending the War on Tourism ? And saying that the US should not be put off by "hand-wringing" about "collateral damage" ? Geezus - slight over-reaction, don't you think ? Is this the state of informed discussion in the US ? I hope not.

User currently offlineDrDeke From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 830 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 2 months 11 hours ago) and read 4500 times:

Sooo, what? We should just nuke Iran, Syria and North Korea right now? Do you really think that sounds like a good idea?

-DrDeke



If you don't want it known, don't say it on a phone.
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21485 posts, RR: 53
Reply 3, posted (8 years 2 months 11 hours ago) and read 4494 times:

Quoting Matt D (Thread starter):
and my favorite line:

"I know of no instances where appeasement, such as the current Western modus operandi, has borne fruit."

Yeah. We urgently need a few (more) massacres and more unreflected violence. That'll help for sure!  crazy   hypnotized 


User currently offlineMatt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 47
Reply 4, posted (8 years 2 months 11 hours ago) and read 4494 times:

Yeah. We urgently need a few (more) massacres and more unreflected violence. That'll help for sure!

If it comes down to them or us, then I'd pull the trigger or press the proverbial button and not lose a wink of sleep over it.
Nip the problem right at the source.


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26599 posts, RR: 75
Reply 5, posted (8 years 2 months 11 hours ago) and read 4479 times:

You are absolutely sick.


Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21485 posts, RR: 53
Reply 6, posted (8 years 2 months 11 hours ago) and read 4473 times:

Quoting Matt D (Reply 4):
If it comes down to them or us, then I'd pull the trigger or press the proverbial button and not lose a wink of sleep over it.
Nip the problem right at the source.

Problem is that you're "preparing" for a kind of conflict which isn't actually being fought in reality, and you're woefully unequipped to deal with the ones which are.


User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 7, posted (8 years 2 months 11 hours ago) and read 4462 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 3):
Yeah. We urgently need a few (more) massacres and more unreflected violence.

Do not overlook this fact: many people in the west, and particularly in the US are becoming convinced that these massacres and this "unreflected" violence ARE COMING ANYWAY, but they are coming from the likes of Hamas, Hezbollah Al Qaeda et cetera. Many of us are coming to believe that there is not one single course of action open to the west that will prevent these masacres, this violence.

It is understandable that some people (most cooler-headed than the author of that opinion) would go to unthinkable steps to prevent this violence from occurring IN the west.

What, specifically would YOU do?



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineVonRichtofen From Canada, joined Nov 2000, 4629 posts, RR: 36
Reply 8, posted (8 years 2 months 10 hours ago) and read 4449 times:

You guys need to realize that majority of muslims are not terrorists. Watch some real news for once, not the paranoid crap you get on CNN from their "Situation room"  Yeah sure


Word
User currently offlineN174UA From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 994 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (8 years 2 months 10 hours ago) and read 4449 times:

This religious battle has been going on for centuries, and will continue to do so. The underlying problem is that those folks have no incentive to reach a peace deal. We see truces and what not, but how soon after do they start killing each other again? Hell, the Isreali/Lebanon confilct is on its way to starting up again, becuase the dumbass Israelis thought they'd go in and kill some folks even though signed the truce!

Hell with them. Develop our solar cars and windmill farms, and leave those idiots to die in the desert. They don't want peace, and I don't think we should invest another dollar in either side.


User currently offlineMatt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 47
Reply 10, posted (8 years 2 months 10 hours ago) and read 4444 times:

You are absolutely sick.

excuse me, but why?

What part of If it comes down to them or us was vague or unclear?

Are you saying that in a life or death struggle, I should volunteer my own life so that these people who still think with Pleistocene mindsets can feel better about themselves?


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26599 posts, RR: 75
Reply 11, posted (8 years 2 months 10 hours ago) and read 4429 times:

Quoting Matt D (Reply 10):

Given what you and this fool are advocating, the Pleistocene mindset comment seems to bring about the old adage "it takes one to know one"



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 2 months 10 hours ago) and read 4429 times:

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 7):
What, specifically would YOU do?

Well I definitely would try to avoid creating the largest standing army in history by carrying out the largest genocide in history.

Nuke the middle east to deal with Islamic fundamentalism, and then revel in the wonder when you realise that out of the top ten worlds largest muslim populations, only Iran features from the middle east.

Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Turkey, Egypt, Morocco, Nigeria and Algeria all feature right up there with a combined total coming close to a billion Islamic citizens. Who now have a reason to fight.

If a few smaller populations can create the amount of fundamentalism we see today, what will a billion people with real significant motivation accomplish?

Go ahead, nuke. Watch the world fall apart afterward.


User currently offlineSearpqx From Netherlands, joined Jun 2000, 4344 posts, RR: 10
Reply 13, posted (8 years 2 months 10 hours ago) and read 4429 times:

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 7):
What, specifically would YOU do?

What do you suggest we do? One of the favorite accusations from the current conservative crowd in power is that those that oppose them don't have any ideas of their own, they just oppose. Ok, you don't agree with the current course of action, what do you suggest?

As a side note, although the above may sound confrontational, I really am curious. I've wracked my brain and I honestly don't know what can be done. I don't think carpet bombing is the answer, but while I despise his rhetoric, I will agree with the author that appeasement has never resolved anything.



"The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity"
User currently offlineMatt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 47
Reply 14, posted (8 years 2 months 10 hours ago) and read 4427 times:

You guys need to realize that majority of muslims are not terrorists.

Point taken. But the other side of that argument is that the majority of terrorists ARE Muslim.

Therein lies the rub. Likewise the bigger picture here and the point the author was trying to make is: should we just surrender ourselves, our lives, our values, freedoms (what's left of them), and luxuries, all to avoid "offending" someone?

Why is everyone today so afraid of drawing a line in the sand....and doling out consequences to anyone who crosses said line?

If todays mindset was prevelant in the mid 1940's, then we'd all be speaking Japanese or German today. Is that what you wish had happend?


User currently offlineSean1234 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 411 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (8 years 2 months 10 hours ago) and read 4422 times:

Suppose a nuc goes off in Europe, Isreal or somewhere in the US, it is then traced back to Iran, you can then imagine that complete destruction of Iran would be in order. Hopefully this logic would prevent Iran from ever attempting such an act. Simply having the ability to destroy them in a few minutes should be enough deternece in itself.

User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (8 years 2 months 10 hours ago) and read 4414 times:

Quoting Matt D (Reply 14):
Point taken. But the other side of that argument is that the majority of terrorists ARE Muslim.

Au Contrair (sp?), you didnt experience the IRA troubles, or the Loyalist strikes, or the ETA campaigns, maybe you did experience the Oklahoma bombing, or how about all the antiabortionist attacks in the past decade.

Islamic fundamentalist terrorism has become the main buzzword of today, but its not by far the majority.


User currently offlineRJpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 2 months 10 hours ago) and read 4414 times:

I agree with the article and challenge anyone who disagrees with Matt D to post something from the article that they feel is incorrect. Does anyone really believe Iran is going to give up their nuclear weapons program when there is absolutely no evidence/reason to think they would do so? They need to be stopped and I have faith that George W Bush doesn't want to be the President remembered for letting the global headquarters of Islamic terrorism acquire nuclear weapons.

As for the more general concept of appeasement, the Israel-Hezbollah conflict last month is a prime example of it...Pretty much every country in the world minus the United States was calling for a "proportionate" response to a clear act of war. Could we imagine if the United States fought WWII by responding to Japan "proportionately"? I think it's only a matter of time and more Western blood before the world is clear about the conflict it faces and becomes determined enough to fight it to win.


User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 18, posted (8 years 2 months 10 hours ago) and read 4407 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 12):
Well I definitely would try to avoid creating the largest standing army in history by carrying out the largest genocide in history.

What the hell does Russia have to do with this?



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (8 years 2 months 10 hours ago) and read 4401 times:

Quoting RJpieces (Reply 17):
Does anyone really believe Iran is going to give up their nuclear weapons program when there is absolutely no evidence/reason to think they would do so

No country has yet put forward any substantial evidence for the existence of such a program.


User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (8 years 2 months 10 hours ago) and read 4394 times:

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 18):
What the hell does Russia have to do with this?

I dont think Russia could ever field a billion combatants (Id be surprised if someone could prove me wrong there). Create a war on Islam, and thats what you will cause as those moderate Islamic populations from the countries mentioned before become radicalist in nature.


User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 21, posted (8 years 2 months 10 hours ago) and read 4394 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 12):
Nuke the middle east to deal with Islamic fundamentalism, and then revel in the wonder when you realise that out of the top ten worlds largest muslim populations, only Iran features from the middle east.

In the first place, I never said anything about nuking the middle east. In the second, I do believe that if nukes became the option, someone, somewhere would know about the rest of the Muslim nations. After all, even YOU did.

Anyone who decided, based on my reply #7 that I favor nukes as a solution is not very bright or doesn't read English very well. I even called it...

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 7):
unthinkable

...and still you don't get it. Perhaps you should sit on the sidelines for a while and try to figure out what is being discussed here.



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (8 years 2 months 10 hours ago) and read 4385 times:

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 21):

In the first place, I never said anything about nuking the middle east. In the second, I do believe that if nukes became the option, someone, somewhere would know about the rest of the Muslim nations. After all, even YOU did.

Anyone who decided, based on my reply #7 that I favor nukes as a solution is not very bright or doesn't read English very well. I even called it...

I apologise, my reply, while quoting you, was simply using the question you posed as what essentially every single one of these discussions boiuls down to - what would YOU do? The theme of the thread was to destroy the middle east, hence my inclusion of nuclear weapons in my answer.

Essentially you asked a leading question on the topic, and I answered on the topic.


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (8 years 2 months 9 hours ago) and read 4366 times:

First off, this guy IS certifiable. You did notice it did say "A minority view" in the top left hand part of the page. But in his madness may be a harbinger of the future.

This guy wants, literally right now, to go to war with the entire Islamic world. He wants to threaten them with what Iran and jerks like OBL have threatened the U.S, Israel and the west with-annihilation. In other words, he is no better than they are. He wants the same thing in reverse.

The problem with this guy is we are NOT at that point yet, and may never get to that point. BUT, there is a chance, and a good one, that that point may be coming to the world.

Quoting Matt D (Reply 4):
If it comes down to them or us

It hasn't yet, Matt. That's why this guy is probably Bill Krystol with an alias name. Krystol put out a similar point not long ago-to bomb Iran into submission. For what? They have done nothing yet, and may not. Do we want to repeat the mistakes of the mess in Iraq?

But like I said, if the Islamic world keeps pushing-and they are, then we may get to that point. The terrorists push, and threaten, and the everyday Arab/Muslim rarely raises a hand in oppositon, or, more commonly, quitely approve of what these thugs do.

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 7):
It is understandable that some people (most cooler-headed than the author of that opinion) would go to unthinkable steps to prevent this violence from occurring IN the west.

True. But this guy is off this rocker if he thinks this is the time and place for such action.

Quoting VonRichtofen (Reply 8):
You guys need to realize that majority of muslims are not terrorists.

True, but the majority either openly or tacitly support these guys-at least that's what the perception is. If they're against these terrorists, they need to hunt them down themselves and kill them. The fact they don't tells me they really don't mnd what they do.

That's called "complicity", VR.

Quoting RJpieces (Reply 17):
I agree with the article and challenge anyone who disagrees with Matt D to post something from the article that they feel is incorrect.

I feel it is not the time to even think of such things, and to blame Europe for this is idiotic, and it's a cop-out.

We can't do much right now because we're stretched in Iraq; to do this now would, and rightfully so, precipitate world condemnation, and maybe jackasses like this guy don't care about that, but I have news for him, you and MattD: we don't own the world, and we can't do whatever we please because you or him or anyone else is still scared to death of every shadow that moves.


User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 24, posted (8 years 2 months 9 hours ago) and read 4363 times:

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 7):

Do not overlook this fact: many people in the west, and particularly in the US are becoming convinced that these massacres and this "unreflected" violence ARE COMING ANYWAY, but they are coming from the likes of Hamas, Hezbollah Al Qaeda et cetera. Many of us are coming to believe that there is not one single course of action open to the west that will prevent these masacres, this violence.

Hamas and Hezbollah attacking the United States?  rotfl 

Quoting Matt D (Reply 14):
Why is everyone today so afraid of drawing a line in the sand....and doling out consequences to anyone who crosses said line?


Millions ofpeople of the middle east are thinking the same thing....

-what governemnt invaded Iraq and now is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians every year?

-what government led to the overthrow of the iranian govt?

-what government spend hundreds of millions to provide arms to a group of people to fight the russians in Afghanistan only to leave the people "hang to dry" once the Russians pulled out?

and what about this?



Quoting RJpieces (Reply 17):
I agree with the article and challenge anyone who disagrees with Matt D to post something from the article that they feel is incorrect. Does anyone really believe Iran is going to give up their nuclear weapons program when there is absolutely no evidence/reason to think they would do so? They need to be stopped and I have faith that George W Bush doesn't want to be the President remembered for letting the global headquarters of Islamic terrorism acquire nuclear weapons.

thats not what the article is about......nuking all of the said countries would also be end of half the planet (radiation), not to mention the end of Israel....radiation and direct bombs.....

this guy is a TOTAL Neanderthal and its funny to see who thinks and agrees with him...



"Up the Irons!"
25 Falcon84 : Al Qaeda did, is that not a fact, Jacobin? In this world where freedom of movement is still relatively easy, it is possible. Probable for those two o
26 RJpieces : The author clearly stated: I'm not suggesting that we rush to use our nuclear capacity to crush states that support terrorism
27 Jush : Finally someone with an opinion I like... I absolutely concur. Investing in any side doesn't make it better. Regds jush
28 Falcon84 : But he DID suggest that! He spent most of the article saying we should overtly threaten just that action! He may clearly state it, at the end, but th
29 Post contains images L410Turbolet : "useful idiot" George Galloway with Saddam Hussin in 1994 Your point was?
30 Post contains images Jacobin777 : once again, Al Qaeda are a different organisation from Hezbollah, and certainly from Hamas...... unless there is a vast conspiracy theory, Al Qaeda u
31 Post contains images Falcon84 : Yes, they are, but if Hezbollah can afford to have a few thousand surface-to-surface missiles, they would be capable of sending people to the U.S. if
32 RJpieces : I don't see much of an alternative. What's worse--a US air attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, or nuclear weapons in the hands of IRAN?
33 JGPH1A : And this is worse than nuclear weapons in the hands of Pakistan, India, Israel, North Korea, how ?
34 Padraighaz : Would you leave if asked by a native american? Padraig Houlahan
35 Falcon84 : I AM a native American, friend. My family has been here since the 1600's. What's your point?
36 Post contains links and images Jacobin777 : Hypocritical policies of the United States Government... Maybe we can get A.net moderators to agree that you won't get banned for your one liner...in
37 Jamesag96 : Rubbish, absolutel rubbish. If you sincerely believe this you are clearly detached from the real world. How long ago was AQ considered "local"? Didn'
38 Jacobin777 : yah..but Hezbollah basically said "whatever" to AQ's pledge...
39 Cfalk : With all you guys bitching, I have yet heard someone come up to a challenge to this simple statement. When has appeasement ever succeeded in stopping
40 Bravo45 : Oh! So you are native and the Palestinians living there for longer than that can be thrown out of their land by the 'real natives' who used to live t
41 JamesAg96 : LMAO. They are whack? Like, does that mean "a little off" or "Bat shit cray and I'd kill them if given the chance"?
42 Post contains images JGPH1A : Gette thee back to Englande, noobe. Signed Pocohontas
43 JamesAg96 : Riiiiiiiight...trustworthy as they are. Come on man. There is no defense to that, appeasement has never succeeded but that point has seemingly been g
44 L410Turbolet : Blah, blah, blah. Tell us something we haven't heard from you already. BTW, why don't you worry about human rights in the Muslim world? Not a pretty
45 Padraighaz : My Point? That I bet some of the residents on local reservations here in AZ might laugh at your claim to be native. If being here from the 1600's giv
46 Post contains images Jacobin777 : how about one times the other raised to both powered squared.... no, but they do use the media as a conduit, and it is a bit embarrassing for AQ to b
47 Bravo45 : huh! I am reffering to the millions forced to live in the refugee camps after being ethnically cleansed by the 'real natives' I mentioned, including
48 Falcon84 : I have always stated my desire to see a Palestinian state, right beside Israel. I've never said otherwise, so your point is moot, my friend. They can
49 JamesAg96 : That isn't what you said: Notice your own stress on used to and twice as long ago. The reality is they co-existed while you seem to think the area wa
50 Bravo45 : No buddy, I think you missed my point, although you did mention the desire of a Palestinian state along Israel. But what size and what borders? I say
51 Bravo45 : I am not saying there was peace between the two. My point is towards the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians which of course started this crisis and
52 Bravo45 : Technically you are correct to some extent and if you notice I am not denying that. Like I said I am referring to the ethnic cleansing of million whi
53 TransIsland : From the author's website: "Dr. Walter Williamas [sic!] will be guest hosting The Rush Limbaugh Show on August 25, 2006." (http://www.gmu.edu/departme
54 Braybuddy : Any more threads like this and the planet is in deep trouble.
55 RJpieces : Nobody has yet to post saying how appeasement has ever worked in history, or how it will work in this particular case with Iran....I challenge all of
56 Searpqx : Agreed, appeasement has never worked, so, since you're agreeing with the author, who is claiming that's our policy, what do you suggest? Same questio
57 Falcon84 : -Israel can withdrawl from all occupied territories once a peace agreement, and the state of war is lifted against it from ALL Arab nations. Until th
58 Braybuddy : Well, the IRA bombed and murdered people in Britain and Northern Ireland for decades. The British Government fought a long and sometimes bloody war a
59 Jalto27R : We're sick till you get attacked next, then it's gungho, right?
60 Bravo45 : Hmm... I didn't think we would have this much common ground and I hope you mean what you are saying. About a peace agreement, I don't remember Israel
61 Falcon84 : This has been my stand for quite a long time on the situation. Unfortunately, no one wants to give up Jersuelem, and that, to me, is the ultimate sti
62 Searpqx : But I don't think you can call that appeasement. Nothing was given to the IRA (hell, look at how close its come to falling apart over that). From an
63 Falcon84 : Back to the topic in the thread-starter: I don't think appeasement is the problem in the U.S. I think it is, in many quarters, an over-zealous nationa
64 Bravo45 : Yes but the fact is, Israel simply cannot do anything but force its will, while the Palestinians have a rightful, lawful claim to the city. Remember
65 Falcon84 : I don't see it that way, and the fact is the Palestinians KNOW what Jeruselem means to the Jewish faith-indeed, for all three faiths of the Old Testa
66 Post contains images RJpieces : Did we forget 2000, where PM Barak offered Arafat 97% of the West Bank, Gaza, and all of East Jerusalem? Anyone who truly believes that simply giving
67 Post contains links Bravo45 : No we have not. For your information the myth of a 'Generous offer' was busted a long long time ago. Not going into the details myself here is a deba
68 Bravo45 : I can understand that, but like I said look at the settlements look at the Israel behaviour (with the embassies etc). The Palestinians are not in a p
69 Post contains images DL021 : I asked that question in another thread and there seemed to be little hope in anyone's mind that there is anything that can be done. Most people simp
70 RJpieces : Not to mention that an Iranian bomb means an Egyptian, Turkish, and Saudi Arabian bomb before long...No matter how you cut it, that would mean much l
71 Padraighaz : Therefore the Iranians should refuse to negotiate with the West and the US over nuclear technology - after all, to do otherwise would be to appease t
72 CasInterest : Here is what we need to do. Return to the days of MAD. Quit screwing with the middle east. When some country decides to launch a Nuke or biological we
73 Post contains images DavestanKSAN : So what this guy is basically saying is that, if needed, we could bomb the hell out of terrorist nations, and or nations that support terrorists? At f
74 Falcon84 : Then Israel is going to have to be forced-by the United States-to drop Jeruselem as its Capitol. Spell it out in plain English, Hebrew and Arabic to
75 RJpieces : Jerusalem has always been the Capital of Israel, Falcon. Even before 1967, it was West Jerusalem. You seem to imply that Israeli "occupation" of Jeru
76 Post contains images Derico : "Trust me when I tell you, nuking the Middle East Will solve all your problems.... TRUST WHAT I SAY!"
77 Post contains images Falcon84 : Not at all, but I think, for both sides, it's a major obstacle to overcome. The Iraq war was so much fun when Baghdad Bob was around.
78 MD-90 : If I was President (scary thought, I know), I'd institute a policy of non-intereference in the Middle East and cut off all state aid to Middle Easter
79 ME AVN FAN : No, it is just heaps of rubbish there is no such program, and so nothing to be given up. They do NOT have a "nuclear weapons program" but just a prog
80 Matt D : So what are we supposed to do? 1. Simply level the place (lots of B-52's would come in handy)? 2. Do nothing and just hope for the best (of course the
81 Derico : 1. Simply level the place (lots of B-52's would come in handy)? 2. Do nothing and just hope for the best (of course the elephant in the room is what
82 Post contains images Falcon84 : I might decrease aid to the region, but I don't cut it off. Especially to Israel. If and when her neighbors decide to make peace, and the threat of w
83 Klaus : I agree with most of your post, especially with the paragraph above. Pushing through one's own agenda with no regard whatsoever to the populations af
84 N174UA : Tell both sides that we're through. We did what we could, but it wasn't good enough for either side. No more money for Israel. No more money to the P
85 MD-90 : And so nothing will ever change. Israel will never accept a compromise as long as the money keeps flowing from the fedgov. I sure as hell would cut I
86 Braybuddy : Tell that to the Unionists. Some still see it as a sell-out. One man's negotiation is another's appeasement.
87 Post contains links and images Jacobin777 : investing in alternate energy sources.... solar power, wind power, as well as rechargable battery car power...and better use of energy we have.... Nu
88 AGM100 : I agree with this , and would say that President Bush has said the same thing. He has said that their governments will not look like ours. But the go
89 Post contains images Rammstein :
90 Falcon84 : For once, I agree with you Jacobin. That is one of the reasons the region is in turmoil, is the oil. It's not the only reason; it may not be the prim
91 Cairo : The many who believe this are so caught up in the hysteria, propelled by Bush, Kristol, and Israel etc... that they can't see there IS a course of ac
92 DL021 : So you accept the terrorists reasoning and have decided that acquiescing to their demands is the way to go? You have further decided that the interes
93 Post contains links Gilligan : Then the majority of muslims need to get to work and police their own or we will have no choice but to do it for them. Radical Islam is not religion.
94 Klaus : No. The principle works the same everywhere. Just an example: Remember the CIA operations on behalf of United Fruit in middle America? Chile? The blo
95 Rammstein : If this means that US will continue to support dictators (like Saddam in the '82), supporting wars (Iraq vs Iran), telling bullshit like WMD (and cal
96 Falcon84 : And the answer you'll get is this: -Accept Islam as our faith. -Abandon Israel, so we can destroy it. -Acquiesce to every demand we make, no matter h
97 Jacobin777 : I think we've agreed on more things than that..i.e.-such as CO using all it possibly can from preventing Virgin America "taking off"...i.e.-CO protec
98 DL021 : Actually when people don't understand the different needs of the cold war, and the decisions made under those circumstances with the mindsets of that
99 Klaus : Saddam did accept the UN inspections, but Iraq was jumped by the Bush administration anyway - only to then "discover" that all the warnings had been
100 Falcon84 : It is difficult for people to let go of their 2006 mindset, and look back into the past. I have that argument every time someone brings up Hiroshima,
101 JamesAg96 : No he didn't. And if you have the intel wrong on the other end you end up with 50,000 dead Americans in downtown Houston. Tough decision to make.
102 Gilligan : On the surface yes. But all the while the inspectors were in the country he did everything he could to delay and undermine their work to include movi
103 MD-90 : That is the plain truth.
104 Klaus : And yet he ultimately complied with all the demands made by the UN, including the dismantling of his Al Samoud missile program. No doubt he was reluc
105 Falcon84 : So, we can just do whatever we want, and justify it by a "what if"? I don't believe that, and I think it's terrible foreign policy, and you'll end up
106 Post contains links Gilligan : Yep.... http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Dail...D=ea5e34f9e7c0d8ac74a380c2a935a6e2 http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm http://www.cnn.com/20
107 Klaus : We can probably all remember that it took quite a bit of pressure and tenacity on the part of the UNSC and Hans Blix, but in the end the iraqi side d
108 Post contains images Rammstein : No Klaus, you should be amazed by the fact that some people still belive it!
109 AGM100 : Klaus as usual you defend your positions well. But IMO the larger picture gets blurred by snapshots in history. Their has been an overall move throug
110 Post contains links Dougloid : I like this guy....read what he has to say about college classes. http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...ics/wew/articles/06/stupidity.html
111 DL021 : Klaus...the the very end Sadaam played games with the inspectors only opening up when he thought the wolf was scratching at the door, and the others
112 JGPH1A : If you're GW Bush, you blame him for a mass murder committed by some people to whom he once chatted for 5 minutes 15 years ago, invade his country, t
113 DL021 : Well, exaggeration like that certainly does simplify what direction one should take...... I know you don't like the man, but do you think Sadaam was
114 Post contains images Gilligan : We can? He was in material breach right up to the day we invaded. He had every opportunity to comply, over 10 years to do so, and did not. What is it
115 Post contains images Turbo7x7 : And soon we will have a MAJOR CIVIL WAR in Iraq where more Al-Qaeda types can hide and base their operations in. Heckuva job, Bushie, heckuva job. Mea
116 Gilligan : And the lunacy of the left in thinking that if we just leave them alone ithey will leave us alone is just as amazing.
117 AGM100 : You sound like your hopefull of civil war , but then ... yes of course you are... any thing to make the President look bad. MAJOR CIVIL WAR MAN ! YIP
118 Padraighaz : So you think they played spin-the-bottle and it happened to point to America? I wonder if the Iranians hardliners are saying the same thing and sneer
119 Gilligan : Nope, they don't like our culture, it completely clashes with theirs. They don't like our freedoms, they completely clash with their aims. Taking out
120 Padraighaz : I don't like our Survivor slurping, FOX News dominated panic and patriotism driven culture either. And the exact same thing could have been said abou
121 Jacobin777 : nice flawed concept...he's (SA) guilty until proven innocent? I'm glad that evil madman is out (and hopefully will be hanged along with his cronies).
122 ME AVN FAN : The question was NOT whether Saddam might be yielding to arguments, the question in reality was whether a clean coup-d-etat might have brought about
123 Gilligan : Fortunately there is much more to our culture than that. Communism was never truly practiced anywhere in the world. Dictatorships boasting belief in
124 AGM100 : [quote=ME AVN FAN,reply=122]a clean coup-d-etat might have brought about a change of regime in Baghdad and cleared the path to productive solutions[/q
125 Padraighaz : Whether or not it was truly practiced is irrelevant. The belief in the Dominoes Theory, and of mind-controlling global empires was still there, and t
126 ME AVN FAN : admittedly yes, but it would have been THE ideal solution, and much better also for the USA No, there would NOT have been sectarian violence and Iran
127 Gilligan : I'm sorry, you can try and change your argument all you want but it does not wash. Those in charge of the Soviet Union and China never said to themse
128 AGM100 : Is this to assume that Saddam would have just relinquished power to some type of body representitve of sunni,shia,kurd, christian ? With all the hatr
129 Padraighaz : This does not address the similarities I mentioned concerning Domino Theories and expansionism. I never said the Soviets or Chinese were suicidal the
130 Gilligan : Because the North Vietnamese never said they were going to try and destroy the United States through terror so the comparison is not valid. This is a
131 Padraighaz : And the difference between the US laying waste to enemy cities for political ends, and terrorists trying to lay waste to western cities for political
132 AerospaceFan : A few thoughts: There are those who plead for understanding and urge that we lay down our arms and delve deeply into "root causes". There's the magic
133 AerospaceFan : I would agree with you that the use of nuclear weapons in order to destroy populations should not be seriously considered. To do so would be far too
134 Padraighaz : This strikes me as being at at heart of your position. The implied assumptions are that things are so immediately pressing that something extreme has
135 Sebolino : Very close !! It's au contraire
136 Kalakaua : Dar al-Islam vs. Dar al-Harb
137 Braybuddy : One of the better and most sensible posts on here in a long while Padraig, and welcome to my RU list.
138 Kalakaua : Remember when Hitler violated his treaty w/ Stalin by invading Russia after the British lost? In 1989, the CIA thought the USSR and Communism was viab
139 Post contains images NAV20 : Don't know which history books you've been reading.   In point of fact, in the summer of 1940 it was Hitler who lost - the Luftwaffe lost the Battle
140 Gilligan : A nation state for one. We elect our leaders and if they do things we don't like, can vote them out of office after a set period of time or if they d
141 NAV20 : Gilligan, what relelvance does bombing - even possibly nuking - many thousands of innocent Iranian peasants have to the issue of 'terrorism'? By defi
142 Post contains images Turbo7x7 : LOL, and all this is coming from someone who brandishes the flag of Bangladesh, a country that's 88% Muslim!! Dude, glad to know you're in Texas wher
143 Padraighaz : So, democracies are excused from atrocities. I take great comfort now knowing Iran is a democracy and that Hezbolah is part of one. Well it all depen
144 Post contains images Turbo7x7 : The Bush Admin.'s policies has lit a flame in the Muslim world that is going to be very tough to put out. All that negative karma, not to mention the
145 NAV20 : I reckon the whole of #143 is very perceptive, Padraighhaz. And you've certainly hit the nail on the head there. There's a basic horror of the 'suici
146 AGM100 : Classic , maybe you have forgotton the "negative Karma" before President Bush. WTC 93 , USS Cole, Embassy Bombings, Hostages 79. ON AND ON .. And don
147 Gilligan : Thats true and the majority of my comments have to do with Al Queda, not Iranians or Hezbollah. You don't believe that Iran is a state sponsor of ter
148 Padraighaz : As opposed to american royalty like the Bush's and the Kennedys? As for the rest of your comments to post #143, we clearly disagree, and we're going
149 Gilligan : Primaries, and general elections where anybody who can garner enough signatures can get their names on the ballot. Huge difference.
150 Gilligan : Yes, yet again. I would be interested to read however just how many dead in a terrorist attack it would take before you would consider a military res
151 Padraighaz : I have already indicated that I am not opposed to a substantial and proportionate punative response when the opportunity to do so exists: I think you
152 CXA330300 : I seriously doubt Iran would hit Israel with THE BOMB because: 1. More harm than good to Iran. Besides getting the worst sort of treatment from the US
153 Post contains images ANCFlyer : Let me see if I get this comment straight in my mind . . . Are you attempting to equate persons of obvious valor and intrepidity who have been decora
154 Gilligan : Yes, but my question is at what level does that punative response kick in since you clearly indicate that 3000 lives lost does not meet the threshold
155 Padraighaz : Look, when you quote this: but ignore this: where I clearly indicate I thought a punative response was appropriate for 9-11, you're behaving like all
156 Gilligan : Again we disagree. While they invited invasion and overthrow due to their stance on refusing to turn over Bin Laden, I do not believe they had any ro
157 Padraighaz : No. I have corrected you 3 times now. I wrote: and also explicitly drew your attention to it: And you yourself used my hyperbole about bombing the ta
158 NAV20 : Trying to spell out our area of disagreement, Gilligan - like you, I see terrorism as a serious problem, but I believe that the appropriate response
159 ANCFlyer : Will you check my reply to you in post 153 please.
160 Post contains images NAV20 : The guy was a veteran of Arnhem and Korea, ANCFlyer. And you're right, the context was different - in those days the only function of NATO forces was
161 Gilligan : If the terrorists are located in the country where the terrorism is planned thats all well and good. Not so if the terrorists are planning and practi
162 Post contains images ANCFlyer : Makes sense then. When those poor bastards got sent into the fight in WW2, it was for 'the duration'. I can understand the comment. Thanks . . . Now,
163 NAV20 : Giligan, ANCFlyer, I think it's important always to try to put yourself in the other guy's place. You'll recall the old phrase, 'Know your enemy', AN
164 ANCFlyer : All good points NAV . . . By the by, I do NOT advocate carpet bombing of Iran . . . or any action at the moment other than diplomatic. Once more plea
165 NAV20 : I was responding to some earlier points, ANCFlyer, and in particular the suggestion that dying for a cause is the province only of 'radical Islam.' Wh
166 Post contains images Turbo7x7 : Geez man, you STILL don't get it. These policies are likely to CREATE MORE TERRORISTS than kill them. Thanks to these policies, recruiting, and sprea
167 Post contains images Gilligan : I did, in the all volunteer army. I served 4 years as an Airborne Ranger. I'd happily go back but at 47 I'm beyond the age limit. So I've put my mone
168 Aither : Agree. Let them stop exporting oil : big problem for us but afterall, it will just precipitate the inevitable... and it will have positive effects on
169 Frequentflyer : Well I think most reasonable people, including those present in this forum, would agree. The issue is rather, how do we make sure this issue is taken
170 Padraighaz : Agreed, there is too much of that going around... I've no idea what this is referring to. Could you post a quote? Thanks in advance, Padraig Houlahan
171 Post contains links Frequentflyer : Sure Padraig, there you go: http://www.kucinich.us/archive/home/...p?src=k_20060805_nobyvfu_ahxrf.cuc That guy is advocating the abolition of nuclear
172 Post contains images Turbo7x7 : Then you probably know even better than me just how much of a mess the Iraq war is. Would you send YOUR children to a Class A clusterf***? I doubt yo
173 Padraighaz : But wouldn't the abolition of nuclear arms mean Iran couldn't argue entitlement to them on the basis that 'if Western powers have them, so should Ira
174 Frequentflyer : I understand your opinion but disagree. I think word stability since 1945 owes al ot to the existence of nuclear arsenals. I think the current state
175 Padraighaz : Therefore Iran having nuclear weapons would be stabilizing to the world. After all, if they are a successful deterrent for the US, it will make no di
176 Frequentflyer : Your argumentation is legit, however I am telling you, better to avoid having a Mollah with a nuke in his pocket. Hopefully you understand why. Besid
177 Padraighaz : Because of the stabilizing influence of nuclear arms I bet! Following this to its logical conclusion, Saddam's problem was he was too slow in getting
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why The US Is Losing The War On Terrorism posted Mon Dec 16 2002 08:00:21 by Twaneedsnohelp
Why The Sky Is Blue posted Wed Nov 30 2005 02:22:01 by Garri767
While The US Is Lectured On How To Vote... posted Fri Dec 3 2004 00:15:42 by Cwapilot
For Those Who Don't Think The US Is Looking At posted Sun Nov 7 2004 16:10:30 by L-188
The US Is Doomed posted Fri Oct 1 2004 23:54:48 by N6376m
Kerry Is In Big Trouble, Will Hit News Tomorrow! posted Thu Feb 12 2004 23:36:16 by Leviticus
This Port Authority Cop Is In Big Trouble. posted Sun Oct 12 2003 23:42:24 by Sleekjet
British Take On The US Military In Iraq posted Sat Apr 5 2003 14:08:24 by ADG
Why The US Sanctions On Iran posted Tue Apr 1 2003 20:25:42 by Ammunition
Why Is Discover Card Only In The US? posted Fri Apr 7 2006 21:27:44 by CalAir