well that explains why there never seems to be any fucking thought in your responses. Just knee jerk fear. This is why I hate people without the balls to use their brain and not just do what they are told.lowing wrote:
tough shit, I call it like I see it. It is liberals protesting at soldiers funerals, it is liberals who want to cut defense and weaken our nation. It is liberals who print war plans in the fuckin' newspapers, it is liberals who did nothing for a decade of terror attacks.........AND,.......................it is LIBERALS who the terrorists hope get into the white house. The liberals have the support of terrorists, os you tell me, who is fucked up, again??m3thod wrote:
Who is responsible for the security of the USA? You Damn fucking right. Billions of dollars are pumped into the CIA, FBI and NSA and yet they still managed a royal fuck up.lowing wrote:
Only if tigers were attacking before you wore the fuckin shirt right?? Cuz the US was getting attacked for 10 years prior.
I love it, no terror attacks and it is no big deal. As soon as one hits, you will want Bush's head on a platter for allowing it to happen.....God, I hate liberals.
You damn right Bush's head should be rolling. You know what your problem is Lowers? you can only appropriate blame to the Libs. Its tiresome.
Ahhh yes...nothing serious. Puppies and rainbows for everyone you paranoid infidels..
Knee jerk fear??!!..........Attacks have happened all over the world by terrorists. There is nothing knee jerk about that. What is a knee jerk fear, is people like you trying to convince us all that our freedoms and liberties are being stripped from us, and that big brother has planted secret microphones in our toothpaste. That is a knee jerk fear and paranoia if there ever was any.......Wanting to fight terrorists and put an end to their terrorism is not paranoia it is taking a fucking stand. WITHOUT appeasement!!!I wouldn't expect any liberals to understand that though.golgoj4 wrote:
well that explains why there never seems to be any fucking thought in your responses. Just knee jerk fear. This is why I hate people without the balls to use their brain and not just do what they are told.lowing wrote:
tough shit, I call it like I see it. It is liberals protesting at soldiers funerals, it is liberals who want to cut defense and weaken our nation. It is liberals who print war plans in the fuckin' newspapers, it is liberals who did nothing for a decade of terror attacks.........AND,.......................it is LIBERALS who the terrorists hope get into the white house. The liberals have the support of terrorists, os you tell me, who is fucked up, again??m3thod wrote:
Who is responsible for the security of the USA? You Damn fucking right. Billions of dollars are pumped into the CIA, FBI and NSA and yet they still managed a royal fuck up.
You damn right Bush's head should be rolling. You know what your problem is Lowers? you can only appropriate blame to the Libs. Its tiresome.
By the way, I don't do what I am told. I stand up for what I believe.
Last edited by lowing (2007-01-22 17:52:16)
You can't fight an IDEA with FORCE! End of story. Is that so hard to understand?lowing wrote:
Attacks have happened all over the world by terrorists.
Wanting to fight terrorists and put an end to their terrorism is not paranoia it is taking a fucking stand. WITHOUT appeasement!!!I
Leaving a part of the world where people want to kill us is in our best interest. What do we have to gain by being in Iraq? Leave all occupied areas, and 3 year-olds don't have to see their dad killed in a bomb blast, instilling in them a hatred for the US.
NOT leaving that region for terrorists is in our best interests.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
You can't fight an IDEA with FORCE! End of story. Is that so hard to understand?lowing wrote:
Attacks have happened all over the world by terrorists.
Wanting to fight terrorists and put an end to their terrorism is not paranoia it is taking a fucking stand. WITHOUT appeasement!!!I
Leaving a part of the world where people want to kill us is in our best interest. What do we have to gain by being in Iraq? Leave all occupied areas, and 3 year-olds don't have to see their dad killed in a bomb blast, instilling in them a hatred for the US.
Why not, we fought the ideals of the Third Reich and they no longer exist. So that theory is pretty much bullshit. The difference being, the world banned together to destroy a known threat. Problem is here, some of your countries don't want to get involved for FEAR you will be attacked.
If the terrorists told you not to jump of a bridge, would you?lowing wrote:
tough shit, I call it like I see it. It is liberals protesting at soldiers funerals, it is liberals who want to cut defense and weaken our nation. It is liberals who print war plans in the fuckin' newspapers, it is liberals who did nothing for a decade of terror attacks.........AND,.......................it is LIBERALS who the terrorists hope get into the white house. The liberals have the support of terrorists, os you tell me, who is fucked up, again??
When you figure out what the hell you are talking about, re-post please.jonsimon wrote:
If the terrorists told you not to jump of a bridge, would you?lowing wrote:
tough shit, I call it like I see it. It is liberals protesting at soldiers funerals, it is liberals who want to cut defense and weaken our nation. It is liberals who print war plans in the fuckin' newspapers, it is liberals who did nothing for a decade of terror attacks.........AND,.......................it is LIBERALS who the terrorists hope get into the white house. The liberals have the support of terrorists, os you tell me, who is fucked up, again??
Great Godwin buddy. We did not fight the ideals of the Third Reich, we fought an agressive force led by an insane man with ridiculous beliefs, a charasmatic personality, and a gifted orator.lowing wrote:
NOT leaving that region for terrorists is in our best interests.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
You can't fight an IDEA with FORCE! End of story. Is that so hard to understand?lowing wrote:
Attacks have happened all over the world by terrorists.
Wanting to fight terrorists and put an end to their terrorism is not paranoia it is taking a fucking stand. WITHOUT appeasement!!!I
Leaving a part of the world where people want to kill us is in our best interest. What do we have to gain by being in Iraq? Leave all occupied areas, and 3 year-olds don't have to see their dad killed in a bomb blast, instilling in them a hatred for the US.
Why not, we fought the ideals of the Third Reich and they no longer exist. So that theory is pretty much bullshit. The difference being, the world banned together to destroy a known threat. Problem is here, some of your countries don't want to get involved for FEAR you will be attacked.
Other countries don't want to get involved because they reap the benefits of being somewhat isolationist in their foreign policy.
Worked great for some in WWII.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Other countries don't want to get involved because they reap the benefits of being somewhat isolationist in their foreign policy.
Works even better for many countries NOT on the terrorists short list.usmarine2007 wrote:
Worked great for some in WWII.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Other countries don't want to get involved because they reap the benefits of being somewhat isolationist in their foreign policy.
A conventional war and a guerrilla war really shouldn't be compared in this way.
I am not comparing the two you are. I am comparing isolationism.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Works even better for many countries NOT on the terrorists short list.usmarine2007 wrote:
Worked great for some in WWII.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Other countries don't want to get involved because they reap the benefits of being somewhat isolationist in their foreign policy.
A conventional war and a guerrilla war really shouldn't be compared in this way.
You're saying not to vote for liberals because that's what the terrorists want, so if the terrorists DIDN'T want you to jump of a bridge, would you do it just to spite them?lowing wrote:
When you figure out what the hell you are talking about, re-post please.jonsimon wrote:
If the terrorists told you not to jump of a bridge, would you?lowing wrote:
tough shit, I call it like I see it. It is liberals protesting at soldiers funerals, it is liberals who want to cut defense and weaken our nation. It is liberals who print war plans in the fuckin' newspapers, it is liberals who did nothing for a decade of terror attacks.........AND,.......................it is LIBERALS who the terrorists hope get into the white house. The liberals have the support of terrorists, os you tell me, who is fucked up, again??
Yeah, those swiss have it made in the shade.usmarine2007 wrote:
Worked great for some in WWII.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Other countries don't want to get involved because they reap the benefits of being somewhat isolationist in their foreign policy.
Oh well then we are not fighting the ideals the terrorists hold either, we are fighting against people that plan and carry out attacks on innocent civilians. I can play your game any way you want. Just let me know.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Great Godwin buddy. We did not fight the ideals of the Third Reich, we fought an agressive force led by an insane man with ridiculous beliefs, a charasmatic personality, and a gifted orator.lowing wrote:
NOT leaving that region for terrorists is in our best interests.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
You can't fight an IDEA with FORCE! End of story. Is that so hard to understand?
Leaving a part of the world where people want to kill us is in our best interest. What do we have to gain by being in Iraq? Leave all occupied areas, and 3 year-olds don't have to see their dad killed in a bomb blast, instilling in them a hatred for the US.
Why not, we fought the ideals of the Third Reich and they no longer exist. So that theory is pretty much bullshit. The difference being, the world banned together to destroy a known threat. Problem is here, some of your countries don't want to get involved for FEAR you will be attacked.
Other countries don't want to get involved because they reap the benefits of being somewhat isolationist in their foreign policy.
comparing isolationism to what?usmarine2007 wrote:
I am not comparing the two you are. I am comparing isolationism.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Works even better for many countries NOT on the terrorists short list.usmarine2007 wrote:
Worked great for some in WWII.
A conventional war and a guerrilla war really shouldn't be compared in this way.
Or are you comparing isolationism in 1941 to isolationism in 2007?
I never said not to vote for liberals, I said the terrorists love liberals, and support liberals.jonsimon wrote:
You're saying not to vote for liberals because that's what the terrorists want, so if the terrorists DIDN'T want you to jump of a bridge, would you do it just to spite them?lowing wrote:
When you figure out what the hell you are talking about, re-post please.jonsimon wrote:
If the terrorists told you not to jump of a bridge, would you?
That is an excellent analogy, but I think it hurts your case. The Third Reich grew by military conquest. The current anti-US movement in the muslim world is growing without military conquest. Millions of misguided muslims are convinced that the US is bad. I think that's where the real battle is--the minds of millions of passive terrorist sympathizers in the muslim world. Military force certainly has a role, but ultimately I don't think this battle can be won with violence.lowing wrote:
Why not, we fought the ideals of the Third Reich and they no longer exist. So that theory is pretty much bullshit. The difference being, the world banned together to destroy a known threat. Problem is here, some of your countries don't want to get involved for FEAR you will be attacked.
Not sure how collaborating with Nazi Germany is remaining neutral but hey..........jonsimon wrote:
Yeah, those swiss have it made in the shade.usmarine2007 wrote:
Worked great for some in WWII.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Other countries don't want to get involved because they reap the benefits of being somewhat isolationist in their foreign policy.
The Swiss is a nation of appeasers, hardly something to be proud of.
I can buy that, but for the 3rd Reich to get strong in the first place they too, needed "mis-guided" souls, non-militartily. The world fucked up back then and let them grow into the monster they became. I hope you are not suggesting we sit back and play nice so the same thing happens again.san4 wrote:
That is an excellent analogy, but I think it hurts your case. The Third Reich grew by military conquest. The current anti-US movement in the muslim world is growing without military conquest. Millions of misguided muslims are convinced that the US is bad. I think that's where the real battle is--the minds of millions of passive terrorist sympathizers in the muslim world. Military force certainly has a role, but ultimately I don't think this battle can be won with violence.lowing wrote:
Why not, we fought the ideals of the Third Reich and they no longer exist. So that theory is pretty much bullshit. The difference being, the world banned together to destroy a known threat. Problem is here, some of your countries don't want to get involved for FEAR you will be attacked.
No need to worry, the UN is on top of things.lowing wrote:
The world fucked up back then and let them grow into the monster they became. I hope you are not suggesting we sit back and play nice so the same thing happens again.
Yes, please play my game.lowing wrote:
Oh well then we are not fighting the ideals the terrorists hold either, we are fighting against people that plan and carry out attacks on innocent civilians. I can play your game any way you want. Just let me know.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Great Godwin buddy. We did not fight the ideals of the Third Reich, we fought an agressive force led by an insane man with ridiculous beliefs, a charasmatic personality, and a gifted orator.lowing wrote:
NOT leaving that region for terrorists is in our best interests.
Why not, we fought the ideals of the Third Reich and they no longer exist. So that theory is pretty much bullshit. The difference being, the world banned together to destroy a known threat. Problem is here, some of your countries don't want to get involved for FEAR you will be attacked.
Other countries don't want to get involved because they reap the benefits of being somewhat isolationist in their foreign policy.
How can you stop a person dedicated to attacking civilians? They dress like civilians, blend in, etc. People are doing these things for a reason.
Just like the citizens in Germany after WW1, citizens in these war-torn countries are looking for any type of stability they can latch on to. In Germany it was Hitler promising a better life. In these countries, it is radical Imams promising a better life. Do we play into that?
Hindsight is 20/20. We need not make the mistake again.
The mistake was letting Hitler grow into what he did. So no we do not need to make the same mistake again. All the "winning of hearts and minds" bullshit is great, but it will not work against radicals.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Yes, please play my game.lowing wrote:
Oh well then we are not fighting the ideals the terrorists hold either, we are fighting against people that plan and carry out attacks on innocent civilians. I can play your game any way you want. Just let me know.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Great Godwin buddy. We did not fight the ideals of the Third Reich, we fought an agressive force led by an insane man with ridiculous beliefs, a charasmatic personality, and a gifted orator.
Other countries don't want to get involved because they reap the benefits of being somewhat isolationist in their foreign policy.
How can you stop a person dedicated to attacking civilians? They dress like civilians, blend in, etc. People are doing these things for a reason.
Just like the citizens in Germany after WW1, citizens in these war-torn countries are looking for any type of stability they can latch on to. In Germany it was Hitler promising a better life. In these countries, it is radical Imams promising a better life. Do we play into that?
Hindsight is 20/20. We need not make the mistake again.
I never said we need to "win hearts and minds". We just need to not "lose hearts and minds".lowing wrote:
The mistake was letting Hitler grow into what he did. So no we do not need to make the same mistake again. All the "winning of hearts and minds" bullshit is great, but it will not work against radicals.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Just like the citizens in Germany after WW1, citizens in these war-torn countries are looking for any type of stability they can latch on to. In Germany it was Hitler promising a better life. In these countries, it is radical Imams promising a better life. Do we play into that?
Hindsight is 20/20. We need not make the mistake again.
There is no leader we can attack, no nation to attack, no discriminate force to attack. So then who do we attack? The terrorists? They don't wear a uniform. They don't march in lines. They dress like civilians, train in civilian areas, meet in civilian areas, attack in civilian areas. Do we just start shooting indiscriminately?
I agree that there are certain people we need to go after that simply breed hatred. However, certain actions the US undertakes also breeds hatred. Take away any reason for people to become terrorists, and you are defeating terrorism. What we are doing in Iraq is hardly defeating terrorism.
That is exactly right, but radicals are only a part of the problem. If every person planning anti-US attacks dropped dead today, our terrorism problem would not be solved. There would still be millions of people who really hate the US out there. A tiny proportion of them or their children would become radicals and a new generation of terrorists would arise. The big passive mass generates the radical fringe.lowing wrote:
All the "winning of hearts and minds" bullshit is great, but it will not work against radicals.
We definitely should not sit back and let this grow. But that's what we're doing. It's important to catch, kill, and track today's radical fringe and we're doing that. My concern is that we're not doing much about the big passive mass where the radicals come from. Terrorism is a multi-generational problem and we're ignoring all the generations to come.
So to summarise, if I understand correctly you pity the people you perceive as educated or experienced and think everyone else is a rampant, angsty teenager?Fancy_Pollux wrote:
This flame war is hilarious. You guys bitch and complain like you can actually change the world, yet most of you aren't even old enough to vote. I speak for the entire populace outside of this secluded and insignificant bubble of ignorance and misinformation you guys call a debate forum when I say: learn something before you speak. For those of you who do genuinely know what you're talking about (if you think I'm talking to YOU, chances are I'm not), I really do pity you for wasting so much breath arguing politics with rampant, angsty teenagers.
I'll be the first to admit that I learn alot from these forums, since there is a far greater degree of fine picking over finer points of law, current events and history than you'll ever get from the 30 minute newsbites which the majority of people "outside this secluded and insignificant bubble" subscribe to. So I know why I'm here, what about you? Bored of trolling the Junk Drawer again?