Re: Are you guys buying this stuff? -- Adilbrand Noblesword's Hall of Warriors

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4], 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 20:51:42 04/02/04 Fri
Author: mt. healthy mountaineer
Subject: Re: Are you guys buying this stuff?
In reply to: stu 's message, "Re: Are you guys buying this stuff?" on 23:08:31 03/31/04 Wed

1. Don't use the term "Coalition of the Willing." It is insulting. Just say the US and Britain. The rest are just doing what they are told. You underestimate the power and influence wielded by the mighty US.

I seriously doubt I lack that perspective. How about this? We are the Rome or our era. More than that, we are the Rome, the Greece, the Persians and the Babylonians of our era all wrapped up into one.

Our economy drives the world - we produce 25% of the world's economic activity.

We have the world's most powerful military.

We feed the world.

We entertain the world.

Does this mean we are perfect? No.

Does this mean that might makes right? No

Does this mean that we should just "take it" when someone attacks us? No.

But you are right. It is a good thing. Although it should be done by the UN and not the US.

Yes. It should have. But the UN doesn't have enough intestinal fortitude to clean the toilet, let alone clean out Iraq.

The argument that the UN cannot share in the responsibility because they did not approve of Bush's dirty little war for oil is WEAK WEAK WEAK. And it sure is taking a long frigging time. Right now, Iraq is a lawless free-for-all and the Iraqis grow impatient. We should have had a plan before we blew our wad.

What makes a war legitimate? You think that Al-Qaeda, (it's not even a country) can go to war against the US? Face to face as you say? Not an option. Nor is it an option for afghanistan, or Iraq, or Iran, or any of these countries we keep bullying with our "legitimate" wars. I am not defending terrorism, I am simply explaining it. If you are powerful, you do not have to resort to terrorism

Answer me this: Why did they have to attack to begin with? Apparently you are seeing some compelling need that they had to just kill 3,000 people. Please point it out to me so that I may be enlightened.

(this is getting repetitive. I don't know how else to say it.) You are the one that said Afghanistan declared war on us on 9/11 and I was simply pointing out your inconsistency. Sounds to me like legitimate wars are the ones that we wage against other people.

If you don't want to debate the use of nuclear weapons, that's fine. I will just say that it is the most significant use of WMD on the record. I bet you'd sing a different tune if Japan had dropped a bomb on the US to "save lives." RELATIVITY

They aren't nuclear bombs, but they are radio-active. Believe what you want I guess. What sources do you trust? the ones that tell you what you want to hear?

My source was the great bastion of pro-Bush spew - 60 Minutes. The people that brought you Richard Clarke and the source of this whole debate.

Since 60 Minutes pretty much hates Bush I & II I can't imagine their motivation for lying to cover their behinds.

As for your rant about cults and the endless streams of increasingly narrower definitions, you seemed to be arguing my point for me, so, I really don't know how to argue with me there. I am assuming you agree with me? No difference between a cult and a religion besides size and consencus? One man's religion is another's cult? One man's terrorist is another's soldier?

I ranted about cults? I found the best definition I could find, which is a multi-faceted one that points out the most common usage of the word. I copied and pasted the definition so that you could see my source. I also included the website for the same reason. I wanted you to see where I found my info and that the source was not some fanatical site but a rather mainstream one.

Think of the word "cult" like the word "gay". Do you think the Flintstones theme song would be boasting that they will be having a "gay old time" if it were written in 2004? No. Meanings of words change. Cult is one of those words. At least that was the point I was trying to make. Re-read the definition - esp. the last bits, like I pointed out before. I was trying to clarify. The generic definition is not adequate any longer. The meaning has moved beyond that now.

Fine - one man's terrorist is another man's soldier. Their soldiers ran airplanes into our buildings. Their soldiers declared war on us.

Let me give you an analogy to strengthen the point the point about power made above. You are in second grade. A sixth grade bully steals your dessert every day. One day, you put an extra-strength laxative in the dessert. You have committed an act of juvenile terrorism? Why didn't you just stand up to him yourself? He's only twice your size. To make the analogy fit better, you can't go to the principal because he is the bully's father.

Actually, legally you have just committed assault.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]