Dissatisfied Americans
-
That is very naive. If you know that an enemy is about to pounce do you wait until they have done so when it may well be too late to do something about it or do you take pre-emptive action to ensure that it does not happen at all? One would hope it would be by negotiation but experience shows that negotiation is often seen as weakness and stops nothing. In the case of islamics extremists, for instance, even when they are offered everything they ask for that does not stop them from further terrorist acts. (Arafat was offered everything he asked for but still refused it, possibly showing that actually getting what they'd asked for was not the real goal). So if I have to get violent on your arse to get you to leave me alone: you're damned right I will. If you choose, mistakenly, to call that terrorism then so be it: I call it defence wheraes what the extremists do is terrorism because they will not negotiate: their one and only tactic is violence.
-
That is very naive. If you know that an enemy is about to pounce do you wait until they have done so when it may well be too late to do something about it or do you take pre-emptive action to ensure that it does not happen at all? One would hope it would be by negotiation but experience shows that negotiation is often seen as weakness and stops nothing. In the case of islamics extremists, for instance, even when they are offered everything they ask for that does not stop them from further terrorist acts. (Arafat was offered everything he asked for but still refused it, possibly showing that actually getting what they'd asked for was not the real goal). So if I have to get violent on your arse to get you to leave me alone: you're damned right I will. If you choose, mistakenly, to call that terrorism then so be it: I call it defence wheraes what the extremists do is terrorism because they will not negotiate: their one and only tactic is violence.
I was talking about the Timothy McVeigh case. I felt that you were justifying it. If you feel that the policies and actions of a government / company/ religion is not in your interest, are you justified in using violence? It is terrorism to use violence instead of debate in civil society. If someone resorts to violence, law and order systems have to handle it - not an individual or a group. Since you brought up international affairs: Iraq was not any immediate serious threat to the US. Take away the war on Iraq, and you would not have ended up any worse. Don't give me the humanitarian aspect of removing a dictator and spreading democracy. I am still waiting for economic sanctions and wars on China, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan (although they ended up holding an election recently). There have been many dictators that the United States have worked with before.
-
I was talking about the Timothy McVeigh case. I felt that you were justifying it. If you feel that the policies and actions of a government / company/ religion is not in your interest, are you justified in using violence? It is terrorism to use violence instead of debate in civil society. If someone resorts to violence, law and order systems have to handle it - not an individual or a group. Since you brought up international affairs: Iraq was not any immediate serious threat to the US. Take away the war on Iraq, and you would not have ended up any worse. Don't give me the humanitarian aspect of removing a dictator and spreading democracy. I am still waiting for economic sanctions and wars on China, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan (although they ended up holding an election recently). There have been many dictators that the United States have worked with before.
A lot of cross purposes going on here! Doh! No, I don't attempt to justify any violence, it is abhorent but I recognise that it does have a place, however distastful, in our world and is used for all sorts of reasons, rightly and wrongly.
Thomas George wrote:
Since you brought up international affairs: Iraq was not any immediate serious threat to the US. Take away the war on Iraq, and you would not have ended up any worse.
That wasn't the point at the time: there was a perceived threat (even if that turned out to be not so true) and it was acted upon. And what do you mean by 'you would not have ended up any worse'?
Thomas George wrote:
Don't give me the humanitarian aspect of removing a dictator and spreading democracy. I am still waiting for economic sanctions and wars on China, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan (although they ended up holding an election recently). There have been many dictators that the United States have worked with before.
Now you're confusing pragmatic politics and an emotive response. There is no correlation between the two. I'd love to see the back of thsoe oyu have nmentioned but it won't happen: the inducements and the threats are not immediate or overwhelming.
-
Adnan Siddiqi wrote:
More than 80%[^]
Yeah, but nobody, including me, does jack shit about their dissatisfaction. I guess that's because "doing something" pretty much means taking a gun to various people's heads and pulling the trigger. Which unfortunately, is a crime, even when doing so to people that have lied to the American public, stolen taxpayer money to bail out corporate America, and destroyed our economy and educational systems. Marc
-
Does that mean that 100% of your BS is directed at only 20% of Americans? And you imagine that every time an innocent journalist gets his head lopped off by some dumbass jihadi buddy of yours that they must have been in that 20%? You're nothing but a troll.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
You don't concern yourself with America. The only thing you need to be worried about is your buddies getting killed in the next war and islam going down the trash where it belongs. America will not pull out of Iraq, obama or hillery will not become president I can almost garentee it. People are sick of the shit that is happening and will certainly not elect a bitch or an islamic african who pretends to be of another religion. X|
The Digital World. It is an amazing place in which we primitive humans interact. Our flesh made this synthetic machine. You see, we are so smart, we know a lot of stuff. We were grown from cells that came from the universe, which the matter and physics I'm typing in it is amazing how the universe is working. Human life is very amazing. How I experience this sh*t its like wow.
CataclysmicQuantum wrote:
obama or hillery will not become president I can almost garentee it.
If you had any money, I'd make you a bet.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
A lot of cross purposes going on here! Doh! No, I don't attempt to justify any violence, it is abhorent but I recognise that it does have a place, however distastful, in our world and is used for all sorts of reasons, rightly and wrongly.
Thomas George wrote:
Since you brought up international affairs: Iraq was not any immediate serious threat to the US. Take away the war on Iraq, and you would not have ended up any worse.
That wasn't the point at the time: there was a perceived threat (even if that turned out to be not so true) and it was acted upon. And what do you mean by 'you would not have ended up any worse'?
Thomas George wrote:
Don't give me the humanitarian aspect of removing a dictator and spreading democracy. I am still waiting for economic sanctions and wars on China, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan (although they ended up holding an election recently). There have been many dictators that the United States have worked with before.
Now you're confusing pragmatic politics and an emotive response. There is no correlation between the two. I'd love to see the back of thsoe oyu have nmentioned but it won't happen: the inducements and the threats are not immediate or overwhelming.
With Iraq, it was just the US administration that saw an immediate perceived threat. The rest of the world (except for Blair; most people in the UK did not agree with him either) didn't, and many in the US also did not. The world security situation would not have been any worse without the war on Iraq. America was not under any *immediate* threat from Saddam. I believe that the purpose of Iraq occupation was to get a strategic foothold in the Middle East, with Iraq having boundaries with Iran and Syria. I believe that there was deception from the governments of US and UK to make its people believe that there was an immediate threat so that the war could be sanctioned. The real story will emerge only many years from now when the government records are declassified. Iraq have now become the forward post of the war between USA and the Islamic terrorists. I believe that Afghanistan might have served the same purpose, if Iraq war did not happen. It would have been a lot cheaper too. After WMD was not found, there was an extensive PR campaign that said that the the purpose of the war was the liberation of Iraq. I was referring to that argument. I did not bring up that argument -- the current US administration did. I was just pointing out that that argument is just a face saving exercise -- because there are many countries friendly with the US with similar human rights record as Saddam had.
-
I hear more about Indians in US than Pakistanis.
Maybe they spend more time making themselves programmers and engineers instead of bombs. Besides we have enough mediocre smelly people to drive cabs and run convenience stores.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
With Iraq, it was just the US administration that saw an immediate perceived threat. The rest of the world (except for Blair; most people in the UK did not agree with him either) didn't, and many in the US also did not. The world security situation would not have been any worse without the war on Iraq. America was not under any *immediate* threat from Saddam. I believe that the purpose of Iraq occupation was to get a strategic foothold in the Middle East, with Iraq having boundaries with Iran and Syria. I believe that there was deception from the governments of US and UK to make its people believe that there was an immediate threat so that the war could be sanctioned. The real story will emerge only many years from now when the government records are declassified. Iraq have now become the forward post of the war between USA and the Islamic terrorists. I believe that Afghanistan might have served the same purpose, if Iraq war did not happen. It would have been a lot cheaper too. After WMD was not found, there was an extensive PR campaign that said that the the purpose of the war was the liberation of Iraq. I was referring to that argument. I did not bring up that argument -- the current US administration did. I was just pointing out that that argument is just a face saving exercise -- because there are many countries friendly with the US with similar human rights record as Saddam had.
As I said: pragmatic politics. The thing about politics is we're all stupid enough to vote them in based on false promises and blatant lies then we get all huffy when they do something, that with hindsight, we can all see was complete bollocks. Still, you may be right in the respect that the long term goal may be to control and subdue the middle east. I just think it might be easier to nuke em: be a lot cheaper and quicker and they'll end up doing it anyway.
-
With Iraq, it was just the US administration that saw an immediate perceived threat. The rest of the world (except for Blair; most people in the UK did not agree with him either) didn't, and many in the US also did not. The world security situation would not have been any worse without the war on Iraq. America was not under any *immediate* threat from Saddam. I believe that the purpose of Iraq occupation was to get a strategic foothold in the Middle East, with Iraq having boundaries with Iran and Syria. I believe that there was deception from the governments of US and UK to make its people believe that there was an immediate threat so that the war could be sanctioned. The real story will emerge only many years from now when the government records are declassified. Iraq have now become the forward post of the war between USA and the Islamic terrorists. I believe that Afghanistan might have served the same purpose, if Iraq war did not happen. It would have been a lot cheaper too. After WMD was not found, there was an extensive PR campaign that said that the the purpose of the war was the liberation of Iraq. I was referring to that argument. I did not bring up that argument -- the current US administration did. I was just pointing out that that argument is just a face saving exercise -- because there are many countries friendly with the US with similar human rights record as Saddam had.
There was a time when Adolf Hitler and Nazi germany did not pose an *immediate* threat to anyone either. Because everyone tried to placate Hitler instead of standing up to him and crushing his evil ass when they had the cahnce, the world was thrust into the darkest of times for more than 5 years. How many had to die in that 5+ years that wouldn't have died if SOMEONE had taken care of Hitler before he got so powerful?? Answer that one, peacenik! We've (those over 50) have heard the drones of "better Red than dead" from the 60's 'peace' movement. I think I would rather fight than "be Red".
John P.
-
That's because Indians as smart enough to recognize a good thing, while Pakis are too dumb to come here. Please press the switch soon.
and where was it discussed what do they do or what not? hey kid do you have any ability to read things in context or still you follow same apprach which you used to throw religion of your life but comprehending things out of the context?
Rob Graham wrote:
That's because Indians as smart enough to recognize
I think apart fro native Americans, everyone else in US doing good.
-
CataclysmicQuantum wrote:
obama or hillery will not become president I can almost garentee it.
If you had any money, I'd make you a bet.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
Put your money where your big fat mouth is --- I'll take your bet. If you think America is going to vote for a KNOWN liar (Hillary) or a RACIST (Obama), then you don't know Americans at all!
John P.
-
Put your money where your big fat mouth is --- I'll take your bet. If you think America is going to vote for a KNOWN liar (Hillary) or a RACIST (Obama), then you don't know Americans at all!
John P.
Obama's a racist about as much as you're a thoughtful and eloquent speaker.
-
There was a time when Adolf Hitler and Nazi germany did not pose an *immediate* threat to anyone either. Because everyone tried to placate Hitler instead of standing up to him and crushing his evil ass when they had the cahnce, the world was thrust into the darkest of times for more than 5 years. How many had to die in that 5+ years that wouldn't have died if SOMEONE had taken care of Hitler before he got so powerful?? Answer that one, peacenik! We've (those over 50) have heard the drones of "better Red than dead" from the 60's 'peace' movement. I think I would rather fight than "be Red".
John P.
jparken wrote:
We've (those over 50) have heard the drones of "better Red than dead" from the 60's 'peace' movement.
Though, now that the color 'red' is being used to denote "conservative America," our leftists seem to have changed their tune ... oddly enough, echoing the earlier anti-Communist belief/slogan: "Better dead than red!" The times, they are a-changin' :laugh:
-
Obama's a racist about as much as you're a thoughtful and eloquent speaker.
And you're about as intelligent as a mustard seed --- and who the hell are you to judge me, liberal Democrat? You'd vote for the donkey itself if it ran against a Republican. You don't spend a lot of thoughtful time in the voting booth do you? ---- just pull one lever and you're done, right? How come Democrats are the only ones who can't see through Obama's past? Sure, he speaks well. Maybe you should hear his book on audio CD. But then again, as he would say, I'm just another "typical white guy". JERK!
John P.
-
Put your money where your big fat mouth is --- I'll take your bet. If you think America is going to vote for a KNOWN liar (Hillary) or a RACIST (Obama), then you don't know Americans at all!
John P.
-
Read his book, or maybe better, listen to the audio CD of him reciting his book. Then see if you can ask the same question, OK?
John P.
-
Read his book, or maybe better, listen to the audio CD of him reciting his book. Then see if you can ask the same question, OK?
John P.
-
OK, Dopey. The fact that he spent twenty-some years listening to a bigot preacher spewing hatred for America and for whites --- do you think that maybe that's a good start?????
John P.
-
Put your money where your big fat mouth is --- I'll take your bet. If you think America is going to vote for a KNOWN liar (Hillary) or a RACIST (Obama), then you don't know Americans at all!
John P.
I wouldn't call it a big fat mouth... But I'll bet you. Don't misunderstand, I have no desire to have either at the helm. Either one will do some serious damage to America. But I don't think McCain really has a shot. And sadly, I don't think he'd be much better than Hillary or Obama, but he'd likely do less damage. I admire your confidence in the intelligence of the American public, but I sadly don't share it. What would you like to bet? Are you a .Net developer?
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.