Of course Hitler is a grave exception to the idea I've suggested, but I was just speaking of an ideal.
Actually, he's not. You suggested that Bush would do better to enter into a dialogue with people before he insists on declaring war on them. The problem with this idea is that, generally, the people that *can* be reasoned with are not the people that we end up declaring war on. We have dialogues. We just can't have dialogues with lunatic dictators.
For instance, if we have a problem with France, we go tell France. "France, you're being an asshole."
France goes, "Oh, okay, let's discuss it. By the way, we think YOU'RE being an asshole."
We don't go, "Bomb Paris!"
Whereas, with someone like Saddam, if we go, "Saddam, you're an asshole," he goes, "Come and stop me from being an asshole."
So we did.
It's like, if you are in a hostage negotiation with a guy who is an illegal alien who is afraid of being deported. You can go, "Okay, let's talk about this. We can discuss the programs you can go through, just put down the hostage and we can talk."
However, if you're in a hostage situation with a guy who enjoys killing, who, when you go, "Just put down the hostage" he shoots one of the hostages in the head and laughs about it and is about to go after another one, what do you do?
You shoot the guy.
But that doesn't mean it can't be possible on a smaller scale with those who are willing to give it a try. In fact, most of those who are able to do it are doing it. Not on the list: United States Of America.
How does the USA not try to have dialogues? Unless you count a dialogue as ignoring Iraq's rights abuses as the U.N. did.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
I have to agree with you this time Guy. I wouldn't mind if Bush is gonna kick the ass of the leaders of Iran... They deserve it. There's no way to respect such people.
If someone is going to bring ruthless leaders and dictators into justice, then let it be someone who actually has integrity, which is something that Bush lacks.
If there was any justice in the world, then Osama Bin Laden, George W. Bush, Saddam Hussein, Ariel Sharon, Kim Jong Il, Al-Zarqawi, Ali Khamenei, Tony Blair, and all those sick bastards would be sharing the same prison cell.
They're all fuckin' extremist cowards who don't have the balls to fight the wars they started.
I have to agree with you this time Guy. I wouldn't mind if Bush is gonna kick the ass of the leaders of Iran... They deserve it. There's no way to respect such people.
If someone is going to bring ruthless leaders and dictators into justice, then let it be someone who actually has integrity, which is something that Bush lacks.
If there was any justice in the world, then Osama Bin Laden, George W. Bush, Saddam Hussein, Ariel Sharon, Kim Jong Il, Al-Zarqawi, Ali Khamenei, Tony Blair, and all those sick bastards would be sharing the same prison cell.
They're all fuckin' extremist cowards who don't have the balls to fight the wars they started.
What has Ariel Sharon done that is so wrong? And Blair?
And, okay, why don't we send Bush off to fight in the war! They'll be no one in charge!
I have to agree with you this time Guy. I wouldn't mind if Bush is gonna kick the ass of the leaders of Iran... They deserve it. There's no way to respect such people.
If someone is going to bring ruthless leaders and dictators into justice, then let it be someone who actually has integrity, which is something that Bush lacks.
If there was any justice in the world, then Osama Bin Laden, George W. Bush, Saddam Hussein, Ariel Sharon, Kim Jong Il, Al-Zarqawi, Ali Khamenei, Tony Blair, and all those sick bastards would be sharing the same prison cell.
They're all fuckin' extremist cowards who don't have the balls to fight the wars they started.
What has Ariel Sharon done that is so wrong? And Blair?
And, okay, why don't we send Bush off to fight in the war! They'll be no one in charge!
They've all been responsible for the death of thousands of innocents in a another form of terrorism with a much nicer name called "retaliation". Which in many cases doesn't actually affect the terrorists themselves, but instead gives them more motives to keep comitting terrorists acts, as well as motivating people who have lost loved to become terrorists.
What has Ariel Sharon done that is so wrong? And Blair?
And, okay, why don't we send Bush off to fight in the war! They'll be no one in charge!
They've all been responsible for the death of thousands of innocents in a another form of terrorism with a much nicer name called "retaliation". Which in many cases doesn't actually affect the terrorists themselves, but instead gives them more motives to keep comitting terrorists acts, as well as motivating people who have lost loved to become terrorists.
Trust me, having NO ONE IN CHARGE is far better than having Bush IN CHARGE.
What has Ariel Sharon done that is so wrong? And Blair?
And, okay, why don't we send Bush off to fight in the war! They'll be no one in charge!
They've all been responsible for the death of thousands of innocents in a another form of terrorism with a much nicer name called "retaliation". Which in many cases doesn't actually affect the terrorists themselves, but instead gives them more motives to keep comitting terrorists acts, as well as motivating people who have lost loved to become terrorists.
Trust me, having NO ONE IN CHARGE is far better than having Bush IN CHARGE.
Roosevelt, the greatest American president ever, was responsible for deaths of innocents. Truman, the president who ended WWII by using the nuclear bomb, was responsible for deaths of innocents. Churchill, arguably the best prime minister Britain ever had, was responsible for deaths of innocents.
Your definition of the word 'responsible' would bring each of the above to the electric chair, or, if you're forgiving, to imprisonment.
Trust me, having NO ONE IN CHARGE is far better than having Bush IN CHARGE.
I don't think she's ever gonna realise that Mr.Jingles. This world is heading straight into a big disaster, and it's everybody's fault but his.
Why can't everyone in this world just get along, and treat one another with respect? I know it's a stupid question but it's soooooo frustrating!!!
Why can't everyone in this world just get along, and treat one another with respect? I know it's a stupid question but it's soooooo frustrating!!!
I hear ya, brotha..
What has Ariel Sharon done that is so wrong? And Blair?
And, okay, why don't we send Bush off to fight in the war! They'll be no one in charge!
They've all been responsible for the death of thousands of innocents in a another form of terrorism with a much nicer name called "retaliation". Which in many cases doesn't actually affect the terrorists themselves, but instead gives them more motives to keep comitting terrorists acts, as well as motivating people who have lost loved to become terrorists.
Trust me, having NO ONE IN CHARGE is far better than having Bush IN CHARGE.
Roosevelt, the greatest American president ever, was responsible for deaths of innocents. Truman, the president who ended WWII by using the nuclear bomb, was responsible for deaths of innocents. Churchill, arguably the best prime minister Britain ever had, was responsible for deaths of innocents.
Your definition of the word 'responsible' would bring each of the above to the electric chair, or, if you're forgiving, to imprisonment.
As far as I'm concerned Roosevelt and Churchill sent their troops to battle the Axis right on the battlefield. Of course there's the strong possibility that there would be some innocent lives lost on the crossfire, but for the most part they clearly aimed at military targets. On the other hand, the Russian Army showed no mercy when taking over Berlin in April 1945. Soldiers would shoot at anyone they felt like it, as well as rape some of the women. Now, when it comes to Truman I don't know what to think of him. He brought an end to WWII on the expense of more than 100.000 innocent lives, not including those whose bodies were deformed by radiation. I can't blame Truman completely, but I think for the most part it was Hirohito's fault for not surrendering on time.
Once against, my stand is for the loss of innocent lives. I know that accidents can happen on the crossfire, but for the most part I believe that this 'War On Terrorism' is only breeding MORE TERRORISM. Do you think orphans who have lost their loved ones on air bombings are just going to let their feelings go? I'm not justifying by any means that they end up joining a terrorist cell, but what nobody can deny is that it's very likely that they will.
What has Ariel Sharon done that is so wrong? And Blair?
And, okay, why don't we send Bush off to fight in the war! They'll be no one in charge!
They've all been responsible for the death of thousands of innocents in a another form of terrorism with a much nicer name called "retaliation". Which in many cases doesn't actually affect the terrorists themselves, but instead gives them more motives to keep comitting terrorists acts, as well as motivating people who have lost loved to become terrorists.
Trust me, having NO ONE IN CHARGE is far better than having Bush IN CHARGE.
Roosevelt, the greatest American president ever, was responsible for deaths of innocents. Truman, the president who ended WWII by using the nuclear bomb, was responsible for deaths of innocents. Churchill, arguably the best prime minister Britain ever had, was responsible for deaths of innocents.
Your definition of the word 'responsible' would bring each of the above to the electric chair, or, if you're forgiving, to imprisonment.
As far as I'm concerned Roosevelt and Churchill sent their troops to battle the Axis right on the battlefield. Of course there's the strong possibility that there would be some innocent lives lost on the crossfire, but for the most part they clearly aimed at military targets. On the other hand, the Russian Army showed no mercy when taking over Berlin in April 1945. Soldiers would shoot at anyone they felt like it, as well as rape some of the women. Now, when it comes to Truman I don't know what to think of him. He brought an end to WWII on the expense of more than 100.000 innocent lives, not including those whose bodies were deformed by radiation. I can't blame Truman completely, but I think for the most part it was Hirohito's fault for not surrendering on time.
Once against, my stand is for the loss of innocent lives. I know that accidents can happen on the crossfire, but for the most part I believe that this 'War On Terrorism' is only breeding MORE TERRORISM. Do you think orphans who have lost their loved ones on air bombings are just going to let their feelings go? I'm not justifying by any means that they end up joining a terrorist cell, but what nobody can deny is that it's very likely that they will.
Saddam Hussein was not as harmless as people make him. The man murdered millions of innocent people, including his own son (which probably wasn't innocent, but nevermind that). The man invaded Kuwait. The man fired scuds in 1991 at a country (Israel) which never attacked him or his country (besides destroying his nuclear reactors), aiming at civilian population. Information on what the scuds contained was lacking, and there was fear they might contain deadly chemichals or gas. Iraq certainly had that ability.
Now let's go back to WWII, okay? Roosevelt wanted to join the war but he didn't have the American people's support. The congress forbade him to sell weapons and ammunition to Britain, so he helped the British secretly and claimed he wasn't selling - he was renting. My point in saying that is that the president was obviously right, only he did not have the support he needed. Until Pearl Harbor, that is. People all over the world thought the war would never get to them as long as they did not interfere. Most of the west, including Russia, allowed Hitler to conquer territories such as those of the Czech Republic. No one stopped him, which allowed the holocaust to take place.
The United States did not take an active part in the fight against Muslim terror until September 11th. This was their Pearl Harbor, the point after which they would finally understand we were in the middle of a third world war, only this time it's much more difficult to win. Saddam's invasio
Maybe there weren't weapons of mass destruction. It doesn't matter. Iraq, Iran & Syria contribute so much to the instability of the middle east that they each, in their time, must be taken care of.
...and the United States and Israel don't?
C'mon, let's be real for once. They ALL have their share of blame. They're all idiots who think that war is the only solution. When it comes to foreign affairs, what the United States and Israel need are people like Jimmy Carter and Yitzak Rabin who pushed things forward for diplomatic talks instead of waging war against anything or anyone who doesn't agree with them. I know leaders in Iran are hard to deal with, but Bush and Sharon follow that same path.
Once again, you can't fight TERRORISM with more TERRORISM! If you're willing to enlist for an invasion to another country, then it's obvious that you have a vengeful mentality, and that's why the world so fucked up.
I was recently reading the story of Kim Phuc Phan Thi, the Vietnamese girl who was pictured running naked after her home was destroyed by a napalm bomb in 1972. She could have well grown to become an anti-American militia leader or a terrorist, but instead she chose to work for those who just like her were victims of war, and was willing to forgive those who destroyed her home and left her on the verge of death. People like Kim Phuc Phan Thi are the kind that we need in this world, instead of people who let themselves be taken over by revenge and hatred in order to allow war to prevail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Phuc_Phan_Thi
Now if you were to put any other group of people - homosexual, African-American, Hispanic, etc. after "typical", that would be obvious prejudice. But it's fine for you to say "typical conservative", and then say I'M intolerant?
There you go again, turning around and attacking the person and not the problem; namely the issue I first wanted to discuss. I was not being prejudicial. You cannot compare ethnic origin and sexual orientation to a choice in political stances. The former two you are born with, whereas political stances are a choice. That just shows your level of intelligence, or perhaps desperation, by attempting to put those on the same page. That argument totally does not fly with me.
You initially chose to purposely change the subject to the polar extreme as a way of diverting focus. That is a (subconscious?) conversation tactic of many conservatives that they think works, but it doesn't. And don't come back saying I'm turning this into a partisan battle, because I'm not. I am stating facts. I couldn't think of one liberal who wouldn't be happy to openly entertain the positive ideas and hopes that lie within open dialogue and tolerance. Whether or not it is practical in all cases was not the focus.
Either reply to the subject at hand, or please don't waste any more time in this topic. This is a place to discuss things, not to turn tables and destroy people's thoughts and ideas with extreme examples. I was being positive. You chose to be negative. That is the point I am making. So if you can't help out in this discussion, then this is the last thing I'll say to you on the matter.
So, who's going swimming today? I am!
So, who's going swimming today? I am!
Ahhhhh yeaahh!!! I'm gonna have to go to my girlfriend's house, because I don't have a pool.
Maybe there weren't weapons of mass destruction. It doesn't matter. Iraq, Iran & Syria contribute so much to the instability of the middle east that they each, in their time, must be taken care of.
...and the United States and Israel don't?
C'mon, let's be real for once. They ALL have their share of blame. They're all idiots who think that war is the only solution. When it comes to foreign affairs, what the United States and Israel need are people like Jimmy Carter and Yitzak Rabin who pushed things forward for diplomatic talks instead of waging war against anything or anyone who doesn't agree with them. I know leaders in Iran are hard to deal with, but Bush and Sharon follow that same path.
Once again, you can't fight TERRORISM with more TERRORISM! If you're willing to enlist for an invasion to another country, then it's obvious that you have a vengeful mentality, and that's why the world so fucked up.
I was recently reading the story of Kim Phuc Phan Thi, the Vietnamese girl who was pictured running naked after her home was destroyed by a napalm bomb in 1972. She could have well grown to become an anti-American militia leader or a terrorist, but instead she chose to work for those who just like her were victims of war, and was willing to forgive those who destroyed her home and left her on the verge of death. People like Kim Phuc Phan Thi are the kind that we need in this world, instead of people who let themselves be taken over by revenge and hatred in order to allow war to prevail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Phuc_Phan_Thi
Israel is currently working on executing the disengagement plan. If you call evacuating conquered-during-war territories terrorism, you seriously need help. THAT's a step towards peace.
Rabin made the biggest mistake in Israel's existence, and that's signing the Oslo accords. Do you have any idea how much power those accords gave the Palestinian authority, under Arafat's leadership, who supported terrorists in every possible way (including police officers shooting civilians)? The accords were not a step forward, they were a step backwards. 99% of the Israelis believe they were a huge mistake, and guess what? A new prime minister from the opposite party was elected right after his death.
Oh, and since you love Rabin so much, maybe you'd be delighted to know he said "We'll break their bones!" in the first intifada... Yeah, he was talking about the Palestinians.
From Wikipedia: "Another possible contributor to the high initial casualties was Yitzhak Rabin's aggressive stance towards the Palestinians (notably including an exhortation to the IDF to "break the bones" of the demonstrators). His successor Moshe Arens subsequently proved to have a better understanding of pacification, which perhaps reflects in the lower casualty rates for the following years."
And before you even ask... Of course I'm not glad he was murdered. I just think he's appreciated way too much.