A more "sensitive" war on terror

[SpaceTiger]

> 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?

It's not my rights I'm concerned about. Perhaps you've heard of the previously unlawful detainment of suspected terrorists?


> I may not agree with everything in it, but
> you should certainly admit that your phrasing is a gross
> exaggeration.

The Bush administration is not fascist, but the Patriot Act is something one would expect from such a government. Based on that information, it's a matter of opinion as to whether you'd call my statement an exaggeration.


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

I think that he was very blind to other points of view on the issue, so I do think he did it blindly, but that's something I certainly don't expect you to agree with.


> Of course it is, it always is when you can't respond to it.

You're right, I can't respond to pure opinion. All you said was that you thought the nations were cowardly and the resolutions empty. There were no supporting facts or even any kind of logical reasoning. What am I supposed to say?


> Any resolution that requires no reaction if the demands are
> not met is an empty resolution

True, but sanctions are repurcussions. Based on what we're seeing in Iraq, it seems that they were very effective.


> 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.

There, that's a good direction. Now explain why you think that.


> 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.

Your response reminds me of a girlfriend I once had. Every time you criticized her for something, she would play victim and try to get everyone to feel sorry for her. It was sadly effective.


> I'm just as interested in
> thoughtful debate as you are, so save the bullshit for
> another day

If I thought it was bullshit, I assure you that I wouldn't say it.


> 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.

The word is entirely irrelevant and this is where your post falls into line with what JadussD was complaining about. What's important is what was meant, not exactly what was said. If your every conversation was taped, I assure you that some seemingly inappropriate words, phrases, or intonations would come out from time to time. This kind of reactionism is extremely unhealthy for our country.


> 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

Then ask me privately, for god's sake. Don't use it as an ad hominem in the middle of a political argument.

<P ID="signature"></P>

[Turtle]

> Right, blame the American military! Blame our cultural ways!

Well, when someone is clearly at fault, I do tend to blame them. If someone complains to my landlord because I'm blaring heavy metal music at 2 O'Clock in the morning, I don't blame them for having different taste in music or different sleeping patterns, I blame myself for doing something that was clearly offensive.


> You just shifted the accountably right back in our direction, how very
> liberal of you.

Does that mean that conservatives refuse to take responsibility for their mistakes?


> 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?

Yes, the peole who were attacked were the people who did something to piss someone else off. If you think it's okay for America to attack Iraq because they were perceived as a threat to us, then you must also agree that it was okay for Osama to attack the US because he perceived us as a threat. And surely you realize that killing each other repeatedly isn't going to accomplish anything constructive, therefore attempting to come to terms peacefully is the only logical choice.


> Really, this is where clouding the waters of morality is a
> 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.

Good is purely a matter of which side you're on. Evil never considers themself evil. Good is the side that won, thus the side that writes the history books.

Tell me, in your honest opinion, which is better? Killing someone or coming to a peaceful agreement with them?

<P ID="signature"></P>

[Crazy_MYKL]

> Good is purely a matter of which side you're on. Evil never
> considers themself evil.

ALMOST never, there are always those willing to do evil for evil's sake.

> Good is the side that won, thus the
> side that writes the history books.

"War doesn't decide who's right, war decides who's left."

- Kevin Jackson

<P ID="signature">---
I was at this restaurant. The sign said "Breakfast Anytime."
So I ordered French Toast in the Rennaissance.
---
This post rot26 encoded.</P>

[Turtle]

> ALMOST never, there are always those willing to do evil for
> evil's sake.

For example? (And I'm talking true evil, pulling the wings off of butterflies doesn't count.)

<P ID="signature"></P>

[Tsyni]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5685179/

Danoz is Cheneys son.

<P ID="signature">--//--
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
T.S. Eliot, The Wasteland</P>

[Reaper man]

> I hope many of you take a good look at what your
> voting for this election.

I will, and it will be for Kerry

Fuck Bush. <img src=smilies/flipa.gif>

<P ID="signature"><center>
sig not found...</center></P>

[Reaper man]

> The organization seeks to enforce it's active anti-Christian
> and secular will on the people.

oh yeah, well i could say that your "Christian" organization seeks to enforce it's active pro-Christian
and secular will on the people...


so there <img src=smilies/upeyes.gif>

<P ID="signature"><center>
sig not found...</center></P>

[Kuikorosu]

> I hope many of you take a good look at what your
> voting for this election.

Geez, I know. We don't need to use our brains in war. Sensitivity and thoughtfulness have no bearing on our current situation. We need more explosives, more bombs. We seriously need to kill more of them than they killed us. We need more killing and death. More gore. Bloodshed is the key. MORE DEATH. DEATH AND HATRED. MORE. I DEMAND IT.

NUKE IRAQ.

I'm sure you agree, Danoz. After all, who the fuck needs a "more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history"

MORE DEATH. KILLING IS THE ANSWER. What's wrong with you Kerry fanatics? We need to build bigger bombs, and better weapons, and more effective methods of slaughter.

<P ID="signature"><hr>
Name: Kuik
Level: 40BLM/21RDM/19RNG/15THF/10NIN/8WHM
Nation: Windurst
Server: Fenrir
Linkshell: CursorSolaris</P>

[IceWolf20]

> MORE DEATH. KILLING IS THE ANSWER. What's wrong with you
> Kerry fanatics? We need to build bigger bombs, and better
> weapons, and more effective methods of slaughter.

Just as soon as they perfect the "Tactical Neutron Bomb" we'll be all set....

btw....a big O'l WERD to that post.


<P ID="signature"><div align="center">
...the way to be!</div></P>

[Danoz]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

It's not my rights I'm concerned about. Perhaps you've heard of the previously unlawful detainment of suspected terrorists?

<hr></blockquote>
I've heard about the detainment of people assumed to be a serious threat. I've heard about the detainment of people in perfectly livable environments with special attention to religious needs and meals. I'd like to put away people that want to blow us up, thank you. This is hardly a revisit of the Japanese internment camps in our history.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

The Bush administration is not fascist, but the Patriot Act is something one would expect from such a government. Based on that information, it's a matter of opinion as to whether you'd call my statement an exaggeration.

<hr></blockquote>
Have you read it? It's a very misunderstood piece of legislation that primarily advocates better communication for those who protect us.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

I think that he was very blind to other points of view on the issue, so I do think he did it blindly, but that's something I certainly don't expect you to agree with.

<hr></blockquote>

You go vote for a president that reads opinion polls, I'll vote for a president that wants to protect this country because we elected him to lead.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

You're right, I can't respond to pure opinion. All you said was that you thought the nations were cowardly and the resolutions empty. There were no supporting facts or even any kind of logical reasoning. What am I supposed to say? True, but sanctions are repurcussions. Based on what we're seeing in Iraq, it seems that they were very effective.

<hr></blockquote>
We already had sanctions in place, and they didn't stop Saddam from torturing, maiming and murdering his own people. Remember, it was the UN sanctions in 1990 after the invasion of Kuwait that lead to the UN's corrupted "Oil for Food" program and STILL didn't help the people. None of the resolutions would result in force, cowardly and empty.


> 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><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

There, that's a good direction. Now explain why you think that.

<hr></blockquote>
Because while I doubt he wants to harm America, his intentions are purely political and he stands on no foundation. He's a people-pleaser, he'll adopt the most popular opinion while he holds one foot on either side of the fence and tries to have it both ways. How do you honestly expect him to really lead us against this threat? Let me give you a quote of his from back in 2002--- "Let me be clear: the vote that I will give to the president is for one reason and one reason only, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint conference with our allies." A year later he said it was for a new reason, "to give the president a legitimate threat of force to go to the United Nations and form a coalition.", and later, this time to "protect the security of the country in a way that defended America’s values, that defended the troops." What will it be after this when asked the same question about his vote? He shrugs it off, saying "“the President didn’t need our authorization in the first place." Now he harps on international support and the approval of the UN, which, is obvious a weakness that will only hinder our progression. Liberals have made the word "unilateral" something negative, when it really isn't. Allow me to quote;
"As we’ll see, the Democrats’ big idea is to cultivate an image of sophistication in foreign policy, by advocating that we work more closely with other nations to combat international terrorism. If only we would work through the United Nations, they claim, we could have the cooperation of the entire world, and everything would work out fine. Never mind that America has itsown national security to worry about. Never mind that nations like France and Germany were courted tirelessly by the Bush administration, even when their demands flew in the face of America’s interests. Never mind that our supposedly “unilateral” action in Iraq was actually mounted by a coalition of willing nations.

The Democrats hope to get to the White House by calling George Bush a “unilateralist.” Well, I’ve got two problems with that idea. First of all, the fact that a few other recalcitrant nations won’t agree to join your cause doesn’t make you a unilateralist—even if those nations are longtime allies. But here’s the much more important point:Unilateralism is no crime, if it means acting in our own national interest regardless of the stance of other nations. It is our right—no, it is ourduty —to protect our own interests, regardless of whether other nations are willing to help us. We have never agreed to mortgage away our military to the U.N., or to delegate our national security interests to other nations or international bodies. And no matter what the Democrats might prefer, wemust never do so—not if America is to remain an independent nation." - Sean Hannity

> 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.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

Your response reminds me of a girlfriend I once had. Every time you criticized her for something, she would play victim and try to get everyone to feel sorry for her. It was sadly effective.

<hr></blockquote>
Right, except I'm not playing the victim-- I'm noting how absurd your responses to my viewpoints are.

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

The word is entirely irrelevant and this is where your post falls into line with what JadussD was complaining about. What's important is what was meant, not exactly what was said.

<hr></blockquote>
Uh huh, and as he meant appealing to international support to make this a more sensitive war, every one of my statements is unaffected. I read and listened to all of his words, and I assure you the terrorists will not be effected by our sensitivity-- and certainly not by a sensitive appeal to nations that have already showed disgust and cowardice in the face of our cause.
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>

If your every conversation was taped, I assure you that some seemingly inappropriate words, phrases, or intonations would come out from time to time. This kind of reactionism is extremely unhealthy for our country.

<hr></blockquote>
You need to stop with this direction because I've replied to the intentions behind his word more than once.

<P ID="signature"></P>