A more "sensitive" war on terror - Page 2

Mr. Saturn · 08-13-2004, 03:04 AM

> For somebody who criticizes me for using the word "fascist"
> with the ACLU, I find it strange that you use it just as
> easily when you find something you disagree with.

<a href=http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fascism>Fascism</a>

fasÂ·cism
n.

1. often Fascism
1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

<marquee direction=right scrollamount=14><img src=http://gifs.bestgraph.com/jeux-video/sonic/sonic-02.gif></marquee>

RedXIII · 08-13-2004, 03:04 AM

> Wow. Well, I don't know what I was thinking! All along, John
> Kerry had the answer to fighting the war of our time...
> we'll fight it sensitive.

I personally think we should parachute a couple thousand puppies and kittens on some unsuspecting enemies. They won't be able to last long with all those cute puppies and kittens and then we'll have them right where we want them.

SpaceTiger · 08-13-2004, 03:06 AM

> For somebody who criticizes me for using the word "fascist"
> with the ACLU, I find it strange that you use it just as
> easily when you find something you disagree with.

Perhaps you should look up the definition of fascism sometime.

> This is such spin the way you word this. "...to blindly
> attack third-world countries" like we dropped nuclear
> weapons on an innocent tribe.

Spin? You just reworded my statement as "dropped nuclear weapons on an innocent tribe". How dare you accuse me of spin?

> If by this you mean watching empty resolutions circulate and
> waiting for the approval of cowardly nations-- I'd certainly
> apply this to a sensitive, appeasing approach.

Empty rhetoric. Next....

> It's exactly that. It's exactly what I've been warning
> against since the beginning

So you genuinely think that John Kerry wants to make things easier for the terrorists? What are you smoking?

> speech, used the perfect word in describing how he would
> appease the enemy-- he would fight a sensitive war. You can
> say you knew what he meant, but I'm more concerned with what
> he said.

If you were actually concerned about what he said, you would have included the whole quote. You're just interested in pushing your viewpoint by any means necessary. I find the ethics of your debating tactics to be utterly appalling.

Turtle · 08-13-2004, 03:26 AM

Has anyone taken the time to consider that the reason Osama bin Laden turned against the United States was because of the disrespectful actions of American military personnel in the Muslim Holy Land? A little sensitivity might have prevented the 9/11 attacks from happening in the first place. I wish I could say that I'm surprised that this has never once been mentioned as part of the coverage of the recent atrocities regarding the torture of innocent civilians by the American military, but it's not at all surprising considering the state of American media.

However, I believe there are two ways to protect the US. We can go around bombing anyone whom we believe to be a possible threat, thus making even more enemies for ourselves. Alternatively, we could stop pissing people off in the first place so that they don't want us dead. A little sensitivity might be exactly what's needed in this case.

Crazy_MYKL · 08-13-2004, 03:28 AM

> For somebody who criticizes me for using the word "fascist"
> with the ACLU, I find it strange that you use it just as
> easily when you find something you disagree with.

fascist

adj : relating to or characteristic of fascism; "fascist propaganda" [syn: fascistic] n : an adherent of fascism or other right-wing authoritarian views

The ACLU is the antithesis of fascism, neither right-wing nor authoritarian. The PATRIOT act is pretty damn fascist, and almost centianly unconstitutional, but I digress. (Another topic for another time.)

> This is such spin the way you word this. "...to blindly
> attack third-world countries" like we dropped nuclear
> weapons on an innocent tribe. We actually removed a truly
> fascist dictator from power. We are liberating a country,
> giving other people (not just Americans) the freedom they deserve.

Did we have a well thought out plan to do this? Did we have Congress declare a state of war?

No?

Then it is not only blind, but illegitimate. The last time we officially went to war was WWII.

> If by this you mean watching empty resolutions circulate and
> waiting for the approval of cowardly nations-- I'd certainly
> apply this to a sensitive, appeasing approach.

When countries other than America are involved, their input matters. America is not the only nation that deserves respect.

> It's exactly that. It's exactly what I've been warning
> against since the beginning, and John Kerry, in his own
> speech, used the perfect word in describing how he would
> appease the enemy-- he would fight a sensitive war. You can say you
> knew what he meant, but I'm more concerned with what he said.

You took the quote out of context.

---
I was at this restaurant. The sign said "Breakfast Anytime."
So I ordered French Toast in the Rennaissance.
---
This post rot26 encoded.

Danoz · 08-13-2004, 03:39 AM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr>

Perhaps you should look up the definition of fascism sometime.

<hr></blockquote>
The organization seeks to enforce it's active anti-Christian and secular will on the people. And as for the patriot act, what rights have you been actively deprived of because of it's existance? I may not agree with everything in it, but you should certainly admit that your phrasing is a gross exaggeration.

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr>

Spin? You just reworded my statement as "dropped nuclear weapons on an innocent tribe". How dare you accuse me of spin?

<hr></blockquote>
Your statement was fully untrue. We attacked the regime of Saddam Hussein and we hardly did it "blindly".

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr>

Empty rhetoric. Next....

<hr></blockquote>
Of course it is, it always is when you can't respond to it. Any resolution that requires no reaction if the demands are not met is an empty resolution built only to make it appear that action is being taken, and it can be done over the course of years while evil men like Saddam and his regime murder thousands of people.

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr>

So you genuinely think that John Kerry wants to make things easier for the terrorists? What are you smoking?

<hr></blockquote>
No, I think John Kerry wants to help America, I think most liberals want to help protect America-- but he would go about it the wrong way, and the results of these mistakes would be detrimental.

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr>

If you were actually concerned about what he said, you would have included the whole quote. You're just interested in pushing your viewpoint by any means necessary. I find the ethics of your debating tactics to be utterly appalling.

<hr></blockquote>
Oh come on, everything is "appalling", horrible horrible close-minded Dan just wants to force his viewpoint on the fragile minds of ZD liberals :P. I'm just as interested in thoughtful debate as you are, so save the bullshit for another day and stop replying to my posts like an offended soccer mom. I've included and responded to the words following, if you read my post. When he speaks of "gaining international support" he's taking about the support of select countries that president Bush sought initially and did not get, either because the countries were cowardly-- or they had connections with the dictator we were planning to overthrow. He's talking about the United Nations, and nothing is more sensitive than the way the UN will handle such conflicts. The word was fully inappropriate and I'll criticize it in the context of fighting the war of our time.
And you could have replied to my 'btw', if even to be polite. Good Lord, disagree with me but stop making everything so damnably personal. I actually wanted to know how your summer was :P

Turtle · 08-13-2004, 03:45 AM

> Then it is not only blind, but illegitimate. The last time
> we officially went to war was WWII.

And we've only "officially" went to war 5 times in the last 200 years. In fact, if you only consider it official if Congress issues a declaration of war, then you'll have to disregard the Civil War as an official war.

(wraith_) · 08-13-2004, 03:48 AM

> Your statement was fully untrue. We attacked the regime of
> Saddam Hussein and we hardly did it "blindly".

Either we went in blindly with our "poor Intelligence" of WMD's, or Bush went in with full knowledge that they weren't there.

<hr width=350 align=left>
Remember, the Internet is a place where absolutely nothing happens.

Danoz · 08-13-2004, 03:50 AM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr>

Has anyone taken the time to consider that the reason Osama bin Laden turned against the United States was because of the disrespectful actions of American military personnel in the Muslim Holy Land? A little sensitivity might have prevented the 9/11 attacks from happening in the first place. I wish I could say that I'm surprised that this has never once been mentioned as part of the coverage of the recent atrocities regarding the torture of innocent civilians by the American military, but it's not at all surprising considering the state of American media.

<hr></blockquote>
Right, blame the American military! Blame our cultural ways! Blame the crusades! These are angry people who believe murders and beheadings will bring them virgins, that it will please god! Trying to rationalize their actions is exactly what I'm talking about, and thank you for proving my point. John Kerry means exactly this when he uses the word "sensitive", it encompasses more than just bringing international support into the playing field-- it perfectly defines the way he'll handle terrorism. You just shifted the accountably right back in our direction, how very liberal of you.

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr>

However, I believe there are two ways to protect the US. We can go around bombing anyone whom we believe to be a possible threat, thus making even more enemies for ourselves. Alternatively, we could stop pissing people off in the first place so that they don't want us dead. A little sensitivity might be exactly what's needed in this case.

<hr></blockquote>
Yup, I'm really glad you posted this. The people we're fighting want Americans to die, the kind of sensitivity you're referring to will show as weakness and they'll respond with more force. Do you remember who was really attacked here?
Really, this is where clouding the waters of morality is a perfect example and I have to continue along this fork in the thread. A person who dismantles good and evil will never believe for the life of them that men are capable of true hatred, of evil thoughts and actions. This is weakness, this is sensitivity-- and it leads to dangerous inaction.

Mr. Saturn · 08-13-2004, 03:55 AM

> A person who dismantles good and evil will never
> believe for the life of them that men are capable of true
> hatred, of evil thoughts and actions.

I guess I'm the exception, then.

<marquee direction=right scrollamount=14><img src=http://gifs.bestgraph.com/jeux-video/sonic/sonic-02.gif></marquee>