TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Bring EM ON!!!!!!
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X and you don't think that by further inciting radical-Islamic passions he's not at the same time guaranteeing that it will happen again?

No, I don't. I think that's rediculous logic that basically interprets into "The U.S. should do nothing; she deserves everything that happens to her, and has no right to actively defend herself." The way to guarantee (there is no way to 100% guarantee anything) safety is to actively root out the source of the evils before they have time to execute their plans.

Apparently radical Islamist fundamentalists have been 'incited' for decades, and have thus far faced little resistance to their insane causes. Nobody wins a battle by lying down and letting their enemies walk all over them. Sooner or later, they're going to realize that it's in their best interest not to wake a sleeping giant, and hopefully they'll lose support for a cause that makes little or no sense in the first place.


Edit: Has it happened again so far?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka No, I don't. I think that's rediculous logic that basically interprets into "The U.S. should do nothing; she deserves everything that happens to her, and has no right to actively defend herself." The way to guarantee (there is no way to 100% guarantee anything) safety is to actively root out the source of the evils before they have time to execute their plans.

Bush (USA) was not actively defending himself/itself when he attacked Iraq. Even now, with NO wmd found the rationale by the Bush camp is Saddam was a bad guy to his own people and to his neighbors. Yeah, I guess if they wanted to zap him before he had time to make or execute plans, um, it's okay. But that's not the way he presented it to his Congress and that's not the way he presented it to the United Nations. Isn't it amusing the way he wanted the UN's approval and then when he didn't get it, he decided the UN wasn't of consequence, therefore he didn't need it. Man, this guy and his team/camp whatever you call it really really need to be replaced.

The USA needs its allies. Bush is too "suspect." There's always an ulterior motive that is so obvious to the rest of us. Oil, detract from the Enron fiasco, deficit/debt, economy sucks, jobless rate up...

doesn't anyone wonder about the timing of all this? Isn't it interesting that the USA goes to war against the evil Iraqis when most of the American people are in an uproar about the behaviour and conduct of the adminstration's cronies (corporate corruption)? GET THEIR MINDS OFF WHAT'S IMPORTANT!! Give them a war...a war against THE terrorists!!

quote:

Originally posted by Echo of Silence Bush (USA) was not actively defending himself/itself when he attacked Iraq. Even now, with NO wmd found the rationale by the Bush camp is Saddam was a bad guy to his own people and to his neighbors. Yeah, I guess if they wanted to zap him before he had time to make or execute plans, um, it's okay. But that's not the way he presented it to his Congress and that's not the way he presented it to the United Nations. Isn't it amusing the way he wanted the UN's approval and then when he didn't get it, he decided the UN wasn't of consequence, therefore he didn't need it. Man, this guy and his team/camp whatever you call it really really need to be replaced. The USA needs its allies. Bush is too "suspect." There's always an ulterior motive that is so obvious to the rest of us. Oil, detract from the Enron fiasco, deficit/debt, economy sucks, jobless rate up... doesn't anyone wonder about the timing of all this? Isn't it interesting that the USA goes to war against the evil Iraqis when most of the American people are in an uproar about the behaviour and conduct of the adminstration's cronies (corporate corruption)? GET THEIR MINDS OFF WHAT'S IMPORTANT!! Give them a war...a war against THE terrorists!!

It seems like it is soo easy to manipulate the minds of Americans simply by just going to a war and boom they forget all about economy and everything else.I really think it is time for the America to rise agaisnt their racist and ignorant government,before Mr.Bush decides to attack another couttry

can u imagine a world without Bush,it would be a deam come true for many..

Re: Re: hmmmmmm

quote:

Originally posted by nic01445 Why are the lives of earlier soldiers more valuable than the latter?

because combat major combat ended May 1st. so now the soldiers that die are dying in minor combat. and those deaths are deemed unimportant.

there are a lot of issues such as this.

why are anti bush protesters not allowed within the televised range of all his appearances? its just the way things are.

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer can u imagine a world without Bush,it would be a deam come true for many..

define many, same can be said about anything.

imagine a world without cucumbers, it would be a dream come true for many.

quote:

Originally posted by 'mju:zik define many, same can be said about anything. imagine a world without cucumbers, it would be a dream come true for many.

But a painful nightmare to all of those pickle lovers!

On a more serious note:

quote:

because combat major combat ended May 1st. so now the soldiers that die are dying in minor combat. and those deaths are deemed unimportant.

Nobody said that these soldiers deaths are deemd 'unimportant'. The mere fact that they occurred outside of major combat means just that: they were killed outside of major combat. Much like a tragic traffic accident occurs where there is no 'combat'. That doesn't make it any less important or tragic. All it implies is that these soldiers died after the major, daily, heavy battles that were seen in the earlier stages of the war. People don't only die in major combat, and level of combat has little, if nothing to do with the significance of said soldier's life.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Nobody said that these soldiers deaths are deemd 'unimportant'. The mere fact that they occurred outside of major combat means just that: they were killed outside of major combat. Much like a tragic traffic accident occurs where there is no 'combat'. That doesn't make it any less important or tragic. All it implies is that these soldiers died after the major, daily, heavy battles that were seen in the earlier stages of the war. People don't only die in major combat, and level of combat has little, if nothing to do with the significance of said soldier's life.

i wasn't really serious in the comment u relied to.

i impied that by having a policy that bans the televising of that flag draped casket for those who have died after major combat (because it is hurtful to republican election hopes) they are in a sense deeming those deaths less important than those that occured in the first few days of the war.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka No, I don't. I think that's rediculous logic

Okay? So do you think that the 400 years of Holy Crusades were successful in stopping Muslim expansion?

Saint Bernard of Clairvaux's second Crusade only further incited their passions, which ultimately led to the overthrow of Jerusalem by the Muslim ruler Saladin.

War will only breed more war, not peace.

BTW, my logic is based on historical events, not on your media-fed propoganda.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X Okay? So do you think that the 400 years of Holy Crusades were successful in stopping Muslim expansion? Saint Bernard of Clairvaux's second Crusade only further incited their passions, which ultimately led to the overthrow of Jerusalem by the Muslim ruler Saladin. War will only breed more war, not peace. BTW, my logic is based on historical events, not on your media-fed propoganda.

Hmmm...I never mentioned any of my sources. Did you happen to think for just 1 minute that I might just be drawing my own conclusions based on my own rational mind? HMMMMM????

War is ugly--nobody is disputing that. War is an undesirable last resort--I'm not denying that. But to just throw your hands up and give in to an enemy aggressor is to invite your own demise. Come now, grow up, little one.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Hmmm...I never mentioned any of my sources. Did you happen to think for just 1 minute that I might just be drawing my own conclusions based on my own rational mind? HMMMMM????

Well, from a politico-sociological viewpoint I couldn't imagine a rational mind drawing such a conclusion. I'm sorry.

quote:

War is ugly--nobody is disputing that. War is an undesirable last resort--I'm not denying that. But to just throw your hands up and give in to an enemy aggressor is to invite your own demise. Come now, grow up, little one.

We are attacked by a somewhat obscure organization of radical-Muslims and you suggest that we are acting defensively (by dangerously changing our foreign policy) by initiating a pre-emptive strike on two separate countries?

Who do you think should be next? Iran, N. Korea, Syria, or Saudi Arabia?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Come now, grow up, little one.

I'm sitting here at my desk at work laughing at that one. So much for those assumptions of yours.

Nice propoganda display.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.