No Confidence
-
given non-life-threatening alternatives, i hope g_wBush has the stomach for having his own people protest his actions, if what he does ends up killing more US civilians. That just doesn't make sense. I guess we should get rid of all police because sometimes people not directly involved in the crime get hurt. my statement makes perfect sense. if bush chooses the violent route, given non-violent aternatives, i am (as is every other US citizen) entitled to protest. i say this only because it seems that he's already decided on invading afghanistan (at least according to all of the news reports i've heard). and to me that seems to place our troops and our civilians in unnecessary danger. -c ------------------------------ Smaller Animals Software, Inc. http://www.smalleranimals.com
-
What doesn't make sense is the idea that action guarantees death and non-action prevents it. More Americans are going to die, no matter what course of action is taken. Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.
What doesn't make sense is the idea that action guarantees death and non-action prevents it. do you seriously believe rounding up and sentencing a handful of people to some kind of Western justice is going to teach those all of those nasty Islamic heathens a lesson they'll never forget? "Oh no! The Great Satan is displeased! Run for your lives!" if so, i've got some nice land out on Israel's west bank that i'd like to sell ya. More Americans are going to die, no matter what course of action is taken. says who? -c ------------------------------ Smaller Animals Software, Inc. http://www.smalleranimals.com
-
What doesn't make sense is the idea that action guarantees death and non-action prevents it. do you seriously believe rounding up and sentencing a handful of people to some kind of Western justice is going to teach those all of those nasty Islamic heathens a lesson they'll never forget? "Oh no! The Great Satan is displeased! Run for your lives!" if so, i've got some nice land out on Israel's west bank that i'd like to sell ya. More Americans are going to die, no matter what course of action is taken. says who? -c ------------------------------ Smaller Animals Software, Inc. http://www.smalleranimals.com
do you seriously believe rounding up and sentencing a handful of people to some kind of Western justice is going to teach those all of those nasty Islamic heathens a lesson they'll never forget? "Oh no! The Great Satan is displeased! Run for your lives!" if so, i've got some nice land out on Israel's west bank that i'd like to sell ya. Hmm, I don't remember ever saying that. say who? LOL, Bin Laden Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.
-
given non-life-threatening alternatives, i hope g_wBush has the stomach for having his own people protest his actions, if what he does ends up killing more US civilians. That just doesn't make sense. I guess we should get rid of all police because sometimes people not directly involved in the crime get hurt. my statement makes perfect sense. if bush chooses the violent route, given non-violent aternatives, i am (as is every other US citizen) entitled to protest. i say this only because it seems that he's already decided on invading afghanistan (at least according to all of the news reports i've heard). and to me that seems to place our troops and our civilians in unnecessary danger. -c ------------------------------ Smaller Animals Software, Inc. http://www.smalleranimals.com
"i say this only because it seems that he's already decided on invading afghanistan (at least according to all of the news reports i've heard). and to me that seems to place our troops and our civilians in unnecessary danger. " As an ex military person I would ask the question "Whay have the troops if you are not going to use them?" The civilian population is already at risk and the more we capitulate and cater to the terrorists the greater risk we put them in. I agree: Lets dialog with the terrorists but first lets get their undivided attention. I think LBJ had the correct idea: "Get them by the balls and their hearts and minds will follow"
-
While this is a part of the solution approach, our border is so large that effective control is probably not in the cards. The war on drugs has been trying for years to control this and has had only limited success. Controlling people is probably harder. Ed
-
Soviet Union used to have an even larger border before it split up, I believe, but was able to have it protected.
Their approach to civil liberties are somewhat different than in the US. They may also have a much different pattern of consumers entering/leaving the country from other souces. At both teh Canadian and Mexican borders we have thousands every day that cross. I'm not sure they have that option there. Ed
-
The key to suppressing terrorist acts is maintaining tight control over border crossings. IMHO, the U.S. Border Patrol (my sister is an agent for them) is not properly funded, manned, or supplied for this kind of suppression. They simply don't have enough people and can't afford the anti-incursion technologies that can even warn them when someone crosses over illegally into this country. This means that someone could come in along an unused portion of beach, through the mountains, or any other number of routes. They can carry nuclear or biological weapons in something as small as a backpack and sneak right in and continue killing Americans. Is it up to us citizens to make sure that they don't get across the border? Looks like it is to me...
Which borders would you have closed to stop Columbine or Oklahoma City?
-
... : don't do things that make people want to kill you. I know it's an unpopular way to think about it - but it's really the only one that makes sense. You can't hunt them down and kill them or take over their countries or kill their leaders - you'll just breed a new generation of terrorists. It's that simple. And really, it seems that all they want is for the US to stay the hell out of their lives. We've been fucking around in their business for decades, just to keep oil prices low, and now they've had enough. So, if I was running the show, I'd quit worrying about who to kill and how, and I'd focus on getting the hell out of those countries for good - in all ways : military, economic, humanitarian, religious, political, etc.. Let them all kill each other, oppress each other, fight over sand, whatever they want to do. To hell with em. We'll take our ball and go home. If they want to sell us oil on their own terms, great. If not, we can buy from South America. I'm not saying give in to every two-bit terrorist's demands. But this is bigger than someone bitching about political prisoners - we've been pissing in their sandbox for a long time and they have every right to be mad (not to kill thousands of us, but to be mad, yes). -c (american, but reasonable) ------------------------------ Smaller Animals Software, Inc. http://www.smalleranimals.com
First, I doubt that many people in the World Trade Center nor in any of the airplanes had done anything to make al Qida want to kill them. Second, sometimes it's good to do things that make people want to kill you. Martin Luther King provoked a lot of terrorism in his nonviolent fight to bring economic and racial justice to the U.S. and to eliminate war from the world. He should not have and did not desist simply because it was provoking terrorism. Third, and here is where we agree, responding to violence with violence is wrong and counterproductive. Read Martin Luther King's Eulogy for the Martyred Children. King does not call for the terrorists to be brought to justice, "dead or alive," as President Bush has for Osama bin Laden. He did not call for reprisals against the state (Alabama) that harbored the terrorists. Instead, he told his flock,
And so I stand here to say this afternoon to all assembled here, that in spite of the darkness of this hour, we must not despair. We must not become bitter, nor must we harbor the desire to retaliate with violence. No, we must not lose faith in our white brothers. Somehow we must believe that the most misguided among them can learn to respect the dignity and the worth of all human personality.
The United States built up bin Laden and al Qida not to keep oil prices low (our involvement in the Gulf War is one of the things that turned bin Laden against us), but to fight Communism. In the early 1980s, under President Reagan, bin Laden was recruited by intelligence agencies from the U.S., Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan to fight the Communist occupation of Afghanistan. The concept of jihad, which had lain dormant for centuries, was revived to stimulate a fundamentalist Islamic war against the Soviet occupying army and its Afghan pawns. The U.S. alone sent about a billion dollars of aid and advanced armaments to the Mujahideen, including to bin Laden and his supporters. Today innocent Americans reap the whirlwind whose seeds Washington politicians and intelligence operatives planted. We should fear indeed that further violence on our part will only kill more innocents and will not bring peace. The answer is what Dr. King wrote in his Christmas 1967 sermon:
Bomb our homes and threaten our children, and, as difficult as it is, we will still love you. Send your hooded perpetrators of violence into our communities at the
-
First, I doubt that many people in the World Trade Center nor in any of the airplanes had done anything to make al Qida want to kill them. Second, sometimes it's good to do things that make people want to kill you. Martin Luther King provoked a lot of terrorism in his nonviolent fight to bring economic and racial justice to the U.S. and to eliminate war from the world. He should not have and did not desist simply because it was provoking terrorism. Third, and here is where we agree, responding to violence with violence is wrong and counterproductive. Read Martin Luther King's Eulogy for the Martyred Children. King does not call for the terrorists to be brought to justice, "dead or alive," as President Bush has for Osama bin Laden. He did not call for reprisals against the state (Alabama) that harbored the terrorists. Instead, he told his flock,
And so I stand here to say this afternoon to all assembled here, that in spite of the darkness of this hour, we must not despair. We must not become bitter, nor must we harbor the desire to retaliate with violence. No, we must not lose faith in our white brothers. Somehow we must believe that the most misguided among them can learn to respect the dignity and the worth of all human personality.
The United States built up bin Laden and al Qida not to keep oil prices low (our involvement in the Gulf War is one of the things that turned bin Laden against us), but to fight Communism. In the early 1980s, under President Reagan, bin Laden was recruited by intelligence agencies from the U.S., Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan to fight the Communist occupation of Afghanistan. The concept of jihad, which had lain dormant for centuries, was revived to stimulate a fundamentalist Islamic war against the Soviet occupying army and its Afghan pawns. The U.S. alone sent about a billion dollars of aid and advanced armaments to the Mujahideen, including to bin Laden and his supporters. Today innocent Americans reap the whirlwind whose seeds Washington politicians and intelligence operatives planted. We should fear indeed that further violence on our part will only kill more innocents and will not bring peace. The answer is what Dr. King wrote in his Christmas 1967 sermon:
Bomb our homes and threaten our children, and, as difficult as it is, we will still love you. Send your hooded perpetrators of violence into our communities at the
excellent points. -c ------------------------------ Smaller Animals Software, Inc. http://www.smalleranimals.com
-
Soviet Union used to have an even larger border before it split up, I believe, but was able to have it protected.
You're claiming lots of people *wanted* to get into the former USSR ? Christian As I learn the innermost secrets of the around me, they reward me in many ways to keep quiet. Men with pierced ears are better prepared for marriage. They've experienced pain and bought Jewellery.